The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we, or our) issues this final rule to establish a regulatory framework for the reliable, timely, accurate, and complete reporting of Farm Credit System (System) accounts and exposures for examination activities and risk evaluation. The final rule specifies the reporting requirements and performance responsibilities, including, but not limited to, establishing uniform and standard data fields to be collected from all System institutions and a disciplined and secure delivery of information. The final rule authorizes a Reporting Entity (defined as the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation (Funding Corporation) or an entity approved by FCA), to collect data from all banks and associations and serve as the central data repository manager. Additionally, the final rule requires all banks and associations to provide data to the Reporting Entity to facilitate the collection, enhancement, and reporting of data to FCA.

DATES:

Effective Date: This regulation will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register during which either or both Houses of Congress are in session. We will publish a notice of effective date in the Federal Register.

Compliance Date: All provisions of this regulation require compliance on the effective date, except the Reporting Entity's requirements under § 621.15(b)(1) through (b)(6). We are delaying compliance with these requirements to allow for the development of and transition to the System's central data repository. We will publish the compliance date for these requirements in the Federal Register.

• Reaffirm FCA's authority to collect data on System institution accounts and exposures for examination activities and risk evaluation;

• Require all banks and associations to provide data on accounts and exposures to the Reporting Entity, for the purposes of reporting to FCA; and

• Establish the authority for and responsibilities of the Reporting Entity to collect, store, manage, and extrapolate data on accounts and exposures for reporting to FCA.

II. Background

The Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act),1 in pertinent part, confers authority on FCA to examine and supervise the institutions of the System and authorizes FCA to issue regulations implementing the Act's provisions.2 Our regulations, including this final rule, are intended to ensure the safe and sound operations of System institutions. In order to meet FCA's responsibility to ensure the safety and soundness of System institutions, we must have reliable, timely, accurate, and complete information about each banks' and associations' assets and liabilities.

1 Public Law 92-181, 85 Stat. 583 (1971), 12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.

2 12 U.S.C. 2252(a)(8), (9), and (10).

Section 4.12(b)(5) of the Act confirms FCA's authority to request information from a System institution for examination and supervision and the concurrent obligation of a System institution to provide FCA with access to the records of the System institution. This statute makes it clear that FCA must have access to all records of a System institution and provides that concealment or refusal to provide access to such records is the basis for the appointment of a receiver or conservator.

In addition to that statutory authority, another section of the Act provides authority to FCA to require the production of System institution records. Section 5.9(4) of the Act provides FCA the power to require such reports as it deems necessary from System institutions.3 Additionally, section 5.22A of the Act and § 621.12(a) of FCA regulations require each System institution to prepare and file such reports of condition and performance as may be required by FCA. Further clarification is provided in § 621.12(b) of FCA regulations, which states that these reports of condition and performance must be filed four times a year and may include such additional reports as may be necessary to ensure timely, complete, and accurate monitoring and evaluation of the affairs, condition, and performance of System institutions as determined by the Chief Examiner. In addition, § 621.12(c) of FCA regulations requires all reports of condition and performance to be submitted electronically in accordance with the instructions prescribed by FCA.

3 Further, under section 5.17(a)(11) of the Act, FCA may “[e]xercise such incidental powers as may be necessary or appropriate to fulfill its duties and carry out the purposes of {the} Act.”

For over a decade, FCA has collected detailed asset reports through loan data extracts from System institutions to facilitate examination activities and risk evaluation, and shared this data with the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC) on a confidential basis subject to an interagency agreement. The need for consistent, comprehensive, and comparable data across all System institutions has evolved, as the complexity and volume of assets has increased. The availability of quality and timely data on accounts and exposures, including any loan, lease, letter of credit, derivative, or, any other asset, liability, other balance sheet account, or off-balance-sheet exposure, has become critical to efficient and effective examination activities and risk evaluation. Accordingly, we continue to work with the System to collect more comprehensive data submissions and enhance the reporting to facilitate the evaluation of changing lending risks and conditions.

An integral component of FCA's and FCSIC's ability to quickly and accurately identify and respond to risk is the collection of data on, and identification of, shared assets. Shared assets are any account or exposure where two or more System institutions have assumed a portion of the asset's benefits or risks. On October 3, 2012, the FCA Board approved Bookletter BL-065, which describes FCA's expectations that each System institution and its board of directors establish and implement an automated mechanism to consistently identify shared asset exposures. Bookletter BL-065 continues to contain pertinent guidance for System institutions. After the central data repository is completed by the Reporting Entity, including the implementation of an automated mechanism to accurately identify the System's shared asset exposures, FCA will evaluate whether to rescind Bookletter BL-065.

In addition to other objectives, and in order to facilitate the identification of shared asset exposures and enable System risk assessment, System banks and associations are working with the Funding Corporation to create a central data repository to collect and store data from all System banks and associations, establish an automated mechanism to timely and accurately identify the System's shared asset exposures, and report Systemwide accounts and exposures on behalf of the System banks and associations to FCA. The Funding Corporation, in coordination with the banks and associations, is in the process of developing and deploying the central data repository and plans to assume the role of the Reporting Entity for the banks' and associations' reports of accounts and exposures by yearend 2014.

We believe the final rule provides a uniform system and process for the reporting of accounts and exposures. The final rule reaffirms FCA's authority to collect data from the System and communicates the authority for, and responsibilities of, the Reporting Entity to collect data on behalf of the System banks and associations for delivery to FCA. The final rule also confirms FCA's authority to share examination reports or other information on System institutions prepared or held by FCA with FCSIC, subject to appropriate security and controls.

The final rule requires the banks, associations, and Reporting Entity to establish a system of internal controls over the data. Additionally, the banks and associations must establish a data governance structure with the Reporting Entity to document the responsibilities and accountabilities for the conveyance, storage, and uses of the information stored in the central data repository. This data governance structure should establish agreement among the banks, associations, and Reporting Entity and must be in place prior to the first transfer of data to the Reporting Entity.

During the System's data repository development phase, the banks and associations will continue to prepare and submit the reports of accounts and exposures to FCA in accordance with the instructions prescribed by FCA under § 621.15(a) of this final rule. Upon satisfactory demonstration by the Reporting Entity of the ability to prepare reliable, timely, complete and accurate reporting of accounts and exposures, FCA will accept report(s) of all banks' and associations' accounts and exposures from the Reporting Entity, acting on behalf of the banks and associations. FCA will establish a delayed compliance date for the Reporting Entity's responsibilities under § 621.15(b)(1) through (b)(6) during the data repository development phase.

FCA understands that the development of the central data repository is a necessary precursor to the automated identification and reporting of shared exposures. However, FCA expects timely implementation of the System's mechanism to identify shared asset exposures as required in § 621.15(b)(3) once the data repository is complete. Since the identification of shared asset and customer exposures at the System level through an automated mechanism is not yet implemented, we will establish a delayed compliance date as previously discussed.

The System's ultimate success of implementing a process for reporting shared exposures is dependent upon the cooperation and collaboration of the banks, associations, and Reporting Entity. We also understand that identification, management, and control of shared assets will primarily rest at the bank and association level and will be reported by the banks and associations in their quarterly reports. However, the responsibility of accumulating the shared assets to the shared customer level will primarily rest with the Reporting Entity. As such, the Reporting Entity is not only a conduit to submit the banks and associations reports of accounts and exposures, but is also necessary to establish and report accurate System shared exposures. Due to this interdependency, we expect continual and thorough collaboration and cooperation to ensure the mechanism to identify shared exposures is timely, accurate and complete. The data dictionary and instructions will specify the various components of the shared asset identifiers such as the shared asset number, the shared customer number and the System customer lead. FCA will continue to collaborate with the System on the specifics for identifying shared exposures through the data dictionary and instructions published on the FCA Web site.

The final regulation requires the Reporting Entity to notify FCA immediately in writing of the following events: (1) If there is a breach of information; (2) if there is a request for data from the reports of accounts and exposures from non-System entities; or, (3) if it is unable to prepare and submit the report(s) of accounts and exposures in compliance with the regulation. Additionally, in the event of a breach of information, the Reporting Entity must provide immediate written notice of the breach to each bank and association concerned.

The Reporting Entity may request that the banks and associations appoint a replacement Reporting Entity to assume the authorities and reporting obligations of the Reporting Entity. Additionally, the banks and associations at their discretion, and with the approval of the FCA, may elect to select a replacement Reporting Entity to assume the authorities and reporting obligations of the Reporting Entity.

The proposed rule, which was published for public comment for 30 days, generated five comment letters, four of which were generally supportive. One comment letter opposed the proposed regulation in its entirety. After considering the comments, we now finalize the proposed provisions as discussed below.

III. Discussion of Comment Letters and Section-by-Section Analysis of Final Rule

The five comment letters we received came from one Farm Credit Bank (AgriBank, FCB); three System agricultural credit associations (Farm Credit East, ACA, Greenstone Farm Credit Services, ACA, and River Valley AgCredit, ACA); and the Farm Credit Council (Council) acting on behalf of its membership. These letters contained a number of constructive comments that resulted in changes to a number of provisions in the proposed rule.

General Issues

Four commenters support our efforts to set up a regulatory framework, but ask that we continue to cooperate with System institutions regarding changes to data submission requirements so that an appropriate balance remains between the need to evaluate changing lending risks and the cost of regulatory burden to the System. The concept of a central data repository has been a collaborative and cooperative approach between the System and FCA to ensure all parties' needs are adequately met and addressed. We intend to continue to collaborate and to provide the banks, associations, and Reporting Entity with ample opportunity to provide input on any anticipated changes to the data submission requirements or instructions. In our response below to comments on certain provisions of the proposed rule, we have made some changes to further clarify our intended process for changes to data submission requirements and to limit the regulatory burden on the System.

The commenter that opposed the rule in its entirety was concerned with sending confidential borrower information to the Reporting Entity. We understand and share this concern and believe we have included requirements in the regulation to address it. Specifically, the final rule requires the Reporting Entity to develop and implement an effective system of internal controls over the central data repository to ensure the confidentiality of borrower information. In addition, we expect the banks and associations to establish a data governance structure that documents agreement among the banks, associations, and Reporting Entity on the responsibilities and accountabilities for information stored in the central data repository. Finally, we also require the immediate reporting of any breach of information to FCA and each bank and association concerned.

This commenter is also concerned with the increased cost due to the regulation. We believe that the availability of quality and timely data on accounts and exposures is paramount to efficient and effective examination activities and risk evaluation, as well as the System's own risk-management practices. We believe that establishing a central data repository, including an automated mechanism to accurately identify shared asset exposures, is a prudent expense that provides both FCA and the System (including this commenter) with the ability to timely evaluate risks and conditions, and respond appropriately.

1. Authority To Promulgate the Regulation

FCA cited section 5.22A of the Act as the basis to require a System institution to submit loan data. A commenter questioned whether section 5.22A was the proper authority to promulgate this regulation. Although the commenter acknowledged FCA's inherent authority to access System institution accounts and exposure data for examination activities and support the overall process outlined in the proposed regulation, the commenter was concerned that we cited an incorrect authority for the collection of the data.

The commenter stated that the proposed rule provides a consolidated and efficient approach for submitting data from the System to FCA. However, the commenter stated that it is a “stretch” to call the submission of loan and other similar data at the record level a uniform financial report as contemplated in section 5.22A of the Act. The commenter asserts that financial reporting means balance sheet, income statements, and related supporting schedules, even though FCA has the authority to interpret the statute.

Section 5.22A of the Act requires System institutions to comply with FCA's uniform financial reporting instructions. Section 5.22A was cited in Bookletter BL-065, which was the genesis for the proposed regulation. The Bookletter provides FCA's expectations for System institutions to establish and implement an automated mechanism to identify and report shared asset exposures. Section 5.22A of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that each System institution shall comply with uniform financial reporting instructions required by the Farm Credit Administration to standardize and facilitate the reporting of System data.

The commenter suggests section 4.12(b)(5) of the Act as authority for the regulation. Although we continue to believe that section 5.22A of the Act authorizes the regulation, we have included section 4.12(b)(5) as additional authority. Section 4.12(b)(5) of the Act provides that the FCA Board may appoint a conservator or receiver for any System institution that does not provide FCA with access to the “books, papers, records, or assets of the institution.

Including this additional authority source should provide the balance that the commenter desired and reassurance concerning the types of information retained by System institutions. Also, as a technical matter, we added section 5.22A of the Act as authority for this regulation. We had included a discussion of this section in the preamble to the proposed rule but inadvertently omitted it from the authority citations.

2. Notice and Comment on Instructions

The proposed regulation provides that the banks and associations submit the reports of accounts and exposures in accordance with the instructions provided by FCA. The Council recommended that the rule be revised to provide for notice and comment when FCA changes any of its instructions on the reports of accounts and exposures. The Council asserts that the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553 (APA), requires that new instructions be subject to the notice and comment requirements. Another commenter asserted that the open-ended nature of the information collection process in the instructions is inappropriate in that it lacks balance and could be burdensome. As discussed below, we believe that the APA does not require notice and comment on the instructions for the submission of the accounts and exposure data and that the instructions will be appropriate.

The APA establishes, in pertinent part, that an agency must publish a proposed rule for notice and comment. By definition, a rule is an agency statement of general or particular applicability. A rule does not include an agency's “housekeeping provisions.”

We do not believe that the instructions for the submission of accounts and exposures data are a regulation. The instructions are not an agency statement of general or particular applicability. Rather, we believe that the instructions are procedural on their face and do not change substantive standards for the submission of the data by the System institutions. The instructions do not alter the rights or interests of the System institutions, although the instructions may alter the information and how it is provided to FCA. A procedural rule does not become a substantive one for notice and comment purposes simply because it arguably imposes a “burden” on the System.

We do, however, intend to continue to engage in comprehensive collaboration and communication with the banks, associations, and Reporting Entity. We will provide all parties with sufficient time to review any proposed changes to the data dictionary and instructions and respond to us with any concerns, including the appropriateness of the data requirements and any burden.

In the future, FCA may amend the instructions, including the data dictionary, as the System and FCA continue to assess data needs. FCA intends to initiate an annual collaborative review of the data dictionary and corresponding instructions and provide any details on recommended changes to all parties in order to receive their comments and input prior to initiating any changes. This will ensure the System has the opportunity to provide adequate input to changes in the data submission requirements and in developing instructions on System data collection and storage. FCA plans to inform System institutions of proposed changes to the instructions and allow System institutions ample time to respond to any changes on the content of information to be provided or on the appropriate method of delivering information to the Reporting Entity or FCA. We believe that this process provides adequate balance to ensure that the information collected is appropriate for examination activities and risk analysis. However, exigent circumstances could mandate more frequent changes to the instructions, with or without System input.

The process we have discussed is consistent with the existing process for issuing instructions for providing “Uniform Call Reports.” We continue to believe, as first stated in Bookletter BL-065 that “[c]ollaboration by the System will improve the mechanisms and disciplines necessary to effectively assess and report shared-asset risks in a timely, complete and accurate manner.” We have confidence that this approach balances the needs of FCA to collect uniform and standardized data for examination and risk analysis with the needs of System institutions to collect the data needed and used for business or risk management purposes. Additionally, to clarify an additional comment on this topic, FCA's instructions on the data submission requirements apply uniformly to all banks and associations.

3. Effective Date

Several of the commenters requested that we carefully consider the effective date of this regulation to ensure the System institutions have sufficient time to comply with the requirements. This regulation will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register during which either or both Houses of Congress are in session. FCA will establish a delayed compliance date for the Reporting Entity's requirements under § 621.15(b)(1) through (b)(6) of the rule to allow for the development of and transition to the System's central data repository. Accordingly, the compliance date for § 621.15(b)(1) through (b)(6) requirements will be published separately in the Federal Register. All other sections and requirements of the regulation require compliance on the effective date of the regulation.

As discussed in the preamble, we expect the banks and associations to continue preparing and submitting the reports of accounts and exposures to FCA under the current established data dictionary and instructions prescribed by FCA. This current submission of data will continue until such time as the Reporting Entity completes the development and implementation of the central data repository and satisfactorily demonstrates the ability to prepare and deliver to FCA reliable, timely, complete and accurate reporting of accounts and exposures, including the identification of shared asset exposures. When this occurs, FCA will accept report(s) of all banks' and associations' accounts and exposures from the Reporting Entity, acting on behalf of the banks and associations. FCA understands that the identification of shared asset and customer exposures at the System level is not yet implemented and therefore, as stated previously, a delayed compliance date will be established for these requirements of the rule.

The proposed rule would establish a confidentiality and data security agreement requirement between FCA and FCSIC when accounts and exposures data is shared between the two agencies.4

4 Section 5.59(a)(5) of the Act provides that FCSIC, to the extent practicable, shall use the personnel and resources of FCA to minimize duplication of effort and to reduce costs. Under section 5.59(b), if the FCSIC Board considers it necessary to examine an insured System bank or a System association or any System institution in receivership, it may use FCA examiners to conduct the examination using reports and other information on the System institution prepared or held by FCA. If the FCSIC Board determines that such reports or information are not adequate to enable FCSIC to carry out the duties of FCSIC under section 5.59(b), it may request FCA to examine or to obtain other information from or about the System institution and provide FCSIC the resulting examination report or such other information. See also section 5.19(d) of the Act.

The Council and another commenter stated they were extremely concerned over: (1) The security of FCA or FCSIC storing accounts and exposures data on third-party systems; and (2) FCSIC providing the data to third-party contractors or vendors. They recommended we update the regulatory language to ensure that FCSIC cannot release the data to a vendor or any other third party and that the data must remain on FCA or FCSIC systems at all times.

We understand and share the commenters' concerns with data security. However, we believe that the § 602.2(c) requirement for a confidentiality and data security agreement between FCA and FCSIC adequately ensures the integrity, confidentiality, and security of the data. Safeguarding borrower information is of paramount importance to the System and FCA.

As to the comment concerning providing access to contractors, the interagency agreement between FCA and FCSIC governs and protects borrower data in any form and includes restrictions on sharing the data with contractors. These safeguards are appropriate for this type of data and provide FCA and FCISC the necessary access to the information while protecting it from unauthorized access and use. We also note that pursuant to Federal statute, FCA does not waive any privilege by sharing information with FCSIC. See 12 U.S.C. 1821(t).

The proposed rule would require each bank and association to provide a written certification that the data submitted “has been prepared in accordance with all applicable regulations and instructions, and is a true and accurate record of the data maintained in the bank's or association's database, to the best of its knowledge and belief.”

The Council and other commenters suggested revising the certification requirement of the banks and associations to avoid the possible interpretation that FCA is prescribing what data a System institution maintains in its database. The Council asked for clarification that the term “complete” apply only to data that a bank and association has available electronically. In addition, one commenter stated that they are unable to certify that all of the actual information in their records, regarding any particular borrower, is fully accurate at any point in time because it is borrower provided.

In order to address these concerns, we have modified the language in the final rule as requested to require that System institutions certify that their submissions are a “true and accurate record of the data maintained by the bank or association, to the best of its knowledge and belief.” Furthermore, we intended that each bank's and association's certification apply to the data submitted in its report(s) of accounts and exposures and available in its databases.

3. Reporting Entity Certification Requirement [new § 621.15(b)(4)]

The proposed rule provides, in pertinent part, that the Reporting Entity must certify “that the information provided in the report of each bank's and association's accounts and exposures has been prepared in accordance with all applicable regulations and instructions and accurately represents the information provided to it by the banks and associations.”

The Council suggested revising the Reporting Entity's certification requirement. It believes the certification by the banks and associations is sufficient to ensure that the information in the report complies with the instructions.

While we agree that the Reporting Entity does not need to certify that the banks and associations have complied with the instructions, the Reporting Entity is responsible for certifying its compliance with the instructions, particularly as they relate to the establishment and implementation of an automated mechanism to identify shared asset exposures. To address these comments, we have modified the language in the final rule to clarify that the Reporting Entity needs to certify that the report accurately represents the information provided to it by the banks and associations and that the Reporting Entity has complied with the requirements of § 621.15(b).

The proposed rule provides, in pertinent part, that the Reporting Entity must “[n]otify the Farm Credit Administration if it is unable to prepare and submit the quarterly report of accounts and exposures in compliance with the requirements of this section.”

The Council requests that this provision be deleted. It believes that it is inappropriate to require the Reporting Entity to notify FCA when an individual institution fails to comply with the data submission requirements.

FCA did not intend to hold the Reporting Entity responsible for notifying FCA of institution compliance or noncompliance with reporting responsibilities. Rather, FCA wants to be notified if the Reporting Entity is unable to submit the quarterly report to FCA for any reason, such as technical difficulties or if the accounts and exposures report to FCA from the Reporting Entity does not contain all banks' and associations' reports. In order to address the Council's concern, we have modified the language in the final rule to clarify that the Reporting Entity needs to notify FCA if it is unable to submit the quarterly report in compliance with the Reporting Entity's responsibilities as set forth in § 621.15(b)(1) through (b)(3).

5. Information Breach [new § 621.15(b)(7)]

The proposed rule provides, in pertinent part, that the Reporting Entity would be required to immediately notify FCA and each concerned bank and association if there is a breach of information. Each bank and association would then determine whether any notice of the breach to any of its borrowers was required under applicable laws and regulations. The bank and association would be responsible for providing such notification to its borrowers. We defined “breach of information” to mean “unauthorized acquisition of or access to the central data repository, any quarterly reports of accounts and exposures or any other information received pursuant to § 621.15(a)(1).”

Commenters raised several issues regarding these proposed requirements. They were concerned with the Reporting Entity providing written notice “immediately” to FCA and each bank and association concerned, if there is an information breach. Commenters asked that the term “immediately” be revised to allow a greater time to report, such as 3 business days. Also, commenters requested that we delete the language in § 621.15(b)(7)(ii) that the concerned bank and association determine whether any notice of the breach to any of its borrowers is required under applicable laws and regulations and, if so, that they are responsible for providing such notification. Commenters believe the language is not needed because the banks and associations are already required to comply with applicable laws and regulations. The commenters also requested that FCA clarify that the definition of “breach” refers only to situations in which data has been actually accessed by an unauthorized person.

FCA does not believe it appropriate to allow more time to report a security breach. FCA continues to believe that the report must be made “immediately” because the extreme sensitivity of the data maintained in the central data repository makes it urgent to communicate an information breach. The term “immediately” in this context means without delay or at once. As to the deletion of the language in § 621.15(b)(7)(ii), we agree with the comment and have not included the specific language in this provision of the final rule. As noted in the proposed rule, the Reporting Entity is only responsible for notifying FCA and the bank and association concerned of any information breach. The bank or association concerned must comply with applicable laws and regulations regarding information security and should consider and follow best practices.

Finally, in order to address the concern about the definition of “breach,” we have modified § 621.15(b)(7)(iii). In doing so, we do not believe “breach” should be limited to the occasion where data has actually been accessed by an unauthorized person. Instead, the modified definition is intended to capture attempts by unauthorized persons to access data and unauthorized possession of data.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), FCA hereby certifies that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Each of the banks in the Farm Credit System, considered together with its affiliated associations, has assets and annual income in excess of the amounts that would qualify them as small entities. Therefore, Farm Credit System institutions are not “small entities” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

(c) Disclosure to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation. Without waiving any privilege or limiting any of the requirements of section 5.59 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, we may disclose reports of examination and other examination and non-public information, including data from reports of System accounts and exposures received pursuant to § 621.15 of this chapter, to the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation pursuant to confidentiality and data security agreements executed between the agencies.

PART 618—GENERAL PROVISIONS3. The authority citation for part 618 continues to read as follows:Authority:

§ 618.8300 [Amended]4. Section 618.8300 is amended by removing the words “as authorized in the following paragraphs” and adding in their place, the words “as authorized by Farm Credit Administration regulations (§§ 618.8300 through 618.8330)”.5. Section 618.8310 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:§ 618.8310 Lists of borrowers and stockholders.

(c) In connection with preparing and submitting an electronic report of all System accounts and exposures to the Farm Credit Administration in accordance with the requirements of § 621.15 of this chapter, each bank and association may provide information from its lists of borrowers and stockholders to the Reporting Entity as defined in § 621.2 of this chapter.

6. Section 618.8320 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows:§ 618.8320 Data regarding borrowers and loan applicants.

(b) * * *

(10) In connection with preparing and submitting an electronic report of all System accounts and exposures to the Farm Credit Administration in accordance with the requirements of § 621.15 of this chapter, each bank and association may provide data on its accounts and exposures to the Reporting Entity as defined in § 621.2 of this chapter.

PART 621—ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS7. The authority citation for part 621 is revised to read as follows:Authority:

(a) Accounts and exposures means data related to any loan, lease, letter of credit, derivative, or, any other asset, liability, other balance sheet account, or off-balance-sheet exposure of a System institution.

(n) Shared asset means any account or exposure where two or more Farm Credit institutions have assumed a portion of the asset's benefits or risks. An institution's share in the asset may be established through means such as syndications, participation agreements, assignments, or other arrangements with System entities.

9. Revise the heading of subpart D to read as follows:Subpart D--Reports of Condition and Performance and Accounts and Exposures10. Section 621.12 is amended by revising the heading to read as follows:§ 621.12 Reports of condition and performance.11. Add a new § 621.15 to subpart D to read as follows:§ 621.15 Reports of accounts and exposures.

(a) Responsibilities of banks and associations forpreparing and submitting reports. The banks and associations must prepare and submit an accurate and complete report of all bank and association accounts and exposures electronically to the Farm Credit Administration pursuant to the requirements of this part. In order to accomplish such submission, each bank and association must:

(1) Prepare and submit an accurate and complete report of its accounts and exposures electronically to the Reporting Entity:

(i) In accordance with the instructions prescribed by the Farm Credit Administration, or as may be required by the Farm Credit Administration; and

(ii) Within 20 calendar days after each quarter-end date, and at such other times as the Farm Credit Administration may require.

(2) Submit to the Farm Credit Administration and the Reporting Entity a written certification that the information provided in the report of accounts and exposures has been prepared in accordance with all applicable regulations and instructions, and is a true and accurate record of the data maintained by the bank or association, to the best of its knowledge and belief. The reports shall be certified by the officer of the reporting bank or association named for that purpose by action of the reporting bank's or association's board of directors. If the board of directors of the bank or association has not acted to name an officer to certify to the accuracy of its reports of accounts and exposures, then the reports shall be certified by the president or chief executive officer of the reporting bank or association. In the event the bank or association learns of a material error or misstatement in the information submitted to the Reporting Entity, it must notify the Reporting Entity and the Farm Credit Administration immediately of the error or misstatement and prepare and submit corrected information as soon as practicable.

(3) Respond promptly to any questions by the Reporting Entity related to information provided under this section in connection with the preparation of a report of accounts and exposures, including any data required to establish, implement and maintain consistent, accurate, and complete shared asset identification and reporting of shared asset exposures to the Farm Credit Administration.

(4) Develop, implement, and maintain an effective system of internal controls over the data included in the report of accounts and exposures, including controls for maintaining the confidentiality of borrower information. The system of internal controls, at a minimum, must comply with the requirements of applicable Farm Credit Administration regulations, including § 618.8430 of this chapter.

(b) Responsibilities of the Reporting Entity for preparing and submitting reports. The Reporting Entity must:

(1) Collect, store, and manage the information submitted to it by each bank and association under the requirements of this section in a central data repository in accordance with Farm Credit Administration regulations and prescribed instructions.

(2) Prepare and submit an electronic quarterly report of the accounts and exposures of all banks and associations to the Farm Credit Administration in accordance with the instructions prescribed by the Farm Credit Administration or as may be required by the Farm Credit Administration.

(3) Establish, implement, and maintain an automated mechanism to ensure the reliable, timely, accurate and consistent identification of the banks' and associations' shared asset exposures, and report these exposures and the shared asset identifiers in the electronic quarterly report of accounts and exposures to the Farm Credit Administration. In connection with establishing and implementing the automated shared asset identification mechanism, the Reporting Entity may provide the banks and associations information from the central data repository to identify and report shared asset exposures.

(4) Submit to the Farm Credit Administration a written certification that the information provided to the Farm Credit Administration in the report of accounts and exposures of all banks and associations accurately represents the information provided to it by the banks and associations and that the Reporting Entity has complied with the requirements of § 621.15(b). The reports shall be certified by the president or chief executive officer of the Reporting Entity. In the event the Reporting Entity learns of a material error or misstatement in the information submitted to the Farm Credit Administration, it must notify the Farm Credit Administration immediately of the error or misstatement and prepare and submit corrected information as soon as practicable.

(5) Develop, implement, and maintain an effective system of internal controls over the central data repository, including controls for maintaining the confidentiality of borrower information. The system of internal controls, at a minimum, must comply with the requirements of applicable Farm Credit Administration regulations, including § 618.8430 of this chapter and require that the Reporting Entity:

(i) Develop policies and procedures to ensure that the information submitted in the report of accounts and exposures to the Farm Credit Administration is complete and consistent with the information submitted to the Reporting Entity from the banks and associations under § 621.15(a); and

(ii) Specify procedures for monitoring any material corrections or adjustments, in a timely manner, and provide timely notification and resubmission of the report of accounts and exposures to the Farm Credit Administration.

(6) Notify the Farm Credit Administration if it is unable to prepare and submit the quarterly report of accounts and exposures in compliance with the requirements of § 621.15(b)(1) through (b)(3). The notification:

(i) Must be signed by the chief executive officer, or person in an equivalent position, and submitted to the Farm Credit Administration as soon as the Reporting Entity becomes aware of its inability to comply;

(ii) Must explain the reasons for its inability to prepare and submit the report; and

(iii) May include a request that the Farm Credit Administration extend the due date for the quarterly report of accounts and exposures.

(7) In the event there is a breach of information, immediately provide written notice of the breach to:

(i) The Farm Credit Administration; and

(ii) Each bank and association concerned;

(iii) For the purposes of this section, “breach of information” means any actual or attempted unauthorized access, possession, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of information in the central data repository, any reports of accounts and exposures, or any other information received pursuant to § 621.15(a)(1).

(8) Notify the Farm Credit Administration in writing of any request for data contained in the reports of accounts and exposures that are not explicitly allowed for in § 618.8320(b) of this chapter.

The NCUA Board (Board) is making technical amendments to NCUA's regulations regarding the rating system for corporate credit unions. The technical amendments conform the regulations to a recent policy change adopted by the Board. Specifically, the policy change eliminates the use of the Corporate Risk Information System (CRIS) for corporate credit unions and replaces it with the CAMEL rating system. The technical amendments merely update the regulations to reflect the conversion from the CRIS to the CAMEL rating system for corporate credit unions.

I. Background and Purpose of the Final RuleII. Regulatory ProceduresI. Background and Purpose of the Final RuleWhy is the NCUA Board issuing this rule?

In September 2013, the Board adopted a policy change which converted the rating system for corporate credit unions from CRIS to CAMEL. The Board made this change to: (1) Improve rating comparability, as CAMEL is the standard rating system for natural person credit unions and banks; (2) reduce complexity in managing two different rating systems; (3) provide a uniform rating system to promote greater consistency in rating assignments; and (4) facilitate governance, as corporate credit union directors are familiar with CAMEL at their own natural person credit unions. The Board is now amending §§ 700.2, 701.14, and 704.4,1 which still reference the former CRIS rating system, to update them to reflect the current CAMEL rating system.

1 12 CFR 700.2, 701.14, and 704.4.

III. Regulatory ProceduresRegulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a rule may have on a substantial number of small entities (primarily those under $50 million in assets). NCUA certifies that these technical amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden.2 For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of either a reporting or a recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. NCUA has determined that the technical amendments in this final rule do not increase the paperwork requirements under PRA or regulations of the Office of Management and Budget.

2 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR part 1320.

Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. This final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this final rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

NCUA has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.3

3 Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 4 (SBREFA) provides generally for congressional review of agency rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act.5 NCUA has submitted this rule to the Office of Management and Budget for it to determine if the final rule is a “major rule” for purposes of SBREFA. NCUA does not believe the rule is major.

4 Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

5 5 U.S.C. 551.

Final Rule

Generally, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires a federal agency to provide the public with notice and the opportunity to comment on agency rulemakings. The amendments in this rule are non-substantive and technical. They make minor revisions to reflect the conversion to the CAMEL rating system for corporate credit unions. The APA permits an agency to forego the notice and comment period under certain circumstances, such as when a rulemaking is technical and non-substantive. NCUA finds that, in this instance, notice and public comment are unnecessary under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA.6 NCUA also finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delayed effective date requirement under section 553(d)(3) of the APA.7 The rule, therefore, will be effective January 1, 2014.

PART 700—DEFINITIONS1. The authority citation for part 700 continues to read as follows:Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1752, 1757(6), 1766.

2. Amend § 700.2 by revising paragraph (2) of the definition of “Troubled Condition” to read as follows:§ 700.2 Definitions.

Troubled condition means:

(2) In the case of an insured corporate credit union:

(i) A Federal credit union that has been assigned a 4 or 5 CAMEL rating by NCUA; or

(ii) A federally insured, state-chartered credit union that has been assigned a 4 or 5 CAMEL rating by either NCUA, after an on-site contact, or its state supervisor; or

(iii) A Federal credit union or a federally insured, state-chartered credit union that has been granted assistance under section 208 of the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C 1788, that remains outstanding and unextinguished.

PART 701—ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS3. The authority citation for part 701 continues to read as follows:Authority:

4. Revise § 701.14(b)(4) to read as follows:§ 701.14 Change in official or senior executive officer in credit unions that are newly chartered or are in troubled condition.

(b) * * *

(4) In the case of an insured corporate credit union, Troubled condition means:

(i) A Federal credit union that has been assigned a 4 or 5 CAMEL rating by NCUA; or

(ii) A federally insured, state-chartered credit union that has been assigned a 4 or 5 CAMEL rating by either NCUA, after an on-site contact, or its state supervisor; or

(iii) A Federal credit union or a federally insured, state-chartered credit union that has been granted assistance under section 208 of the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. 1788, that remains outstanding and unextinguished.

PART 704—CORPORATE CREDIT UNIONS5. The authority citation for part 704 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(ii) Unsafe or unsound practice. NCUA has determined, after notice and an opportunity for hearing pursuant to paragraph (h)(1) of this section, that the corporate credit union received a less-than-satisfactory CAMEL rating (i.e., three or lower) for any rating category (other than in a rating category specifically addressing capital adequacy) and has not corrected the conditions that served as the basis for the less than satisfactory rating. Ratings under this paragraph (d)(3)(ii) refer to the most recent ratings (as determined either on-site or off-site by the most recent examination) of which the corporate credit union has been notified in writing.

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain AgustaWestland S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the nose landing gear (NLG) pin installations for incorrect assembly. This AD is prompted by reports of incorrectly installed pins discovered on in-service aircraft. These actions are intended to detect incorrectly installed pins, which could result in collapse of the NLG during taxi or landing.

DATES:

This AD is effective January 28, 2014.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of January 28, 2014.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the foreign authority's AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

On July 12, 2013, at 78 FR 41888, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered AgustaWestland S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters with an NLG pin part number 1661-0001 installed. The NPRM proposed to require, within 50 hours time in service (TIS), inspecting the pin installations in the left and right arms for correct installation of the pin, bolts, washers, and nuts.

• If the installation is not correct, the NPRM proposed to require:

○ Inspecting the bolt and nut for corrosion and removing the bolt and nut from service if there is corrosion.

○ Inspecting the pin for corrosion, a crack, and damage, removing the corrosion and measuring the pin diameter if there is any corrosion, and removing the pin from service if the pin diameter is less than 25.36 mm (.998 in) or if there is a crack in the pin.

○ Dye penetrant inspecting the pin flange for surface cracks and removing the pin from service if there is a surface crack.

• If the installation is correct, the NPRM proposed to require inspecting the bolt head and nut for corrosion and removing the bolt or nut from service if there is any corrosion.

The proposed requirements were intended to detect incorrectly installed pins, which could result in collapse of the NLG during taxi or landing.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2012-0262, dated December 14, 2012, issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for the Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. EASA advises that incorrectly installed NLG pins, part number 1661-0001, were discovered on several aircraft. Incorrectly installed pins create a pre-stress condition on the pin flange. According to EASA, a subsequent technical investigation by Agusta concluded that the incorrect installation could be present on a number of other helicopters. EASA states that this condition could lead to NLG structural failure and consequent collapse during landing or taxi, resulting in damage to the helicopter and injury to the occupants. EASA AD 2012-0262 requires inspecting the NLG pin installation on both the left and right arms to determine if the pin, washers, and nuts are correctly installed and, depending on findings, inspecting the bolts, nuts, and pins for corrosion, and also inspecting the pins for surface cracks, and correctly installing the pins.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 41888, July 12, 2013).

FAA's Determination

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Agusta has issued Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-306, dated December 12, 2012 (BT 139-306), for Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. BT 139-306 describes procedures to inspect for correct installation of the bolts, nuts, washers, and pins, inspecting the bolt head and nut for corrosion, and inspecting the pins for surface cracks.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 102 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, inspecting the nose landing gear arm pins will require about 1 work hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85 and a total cost to U.S. operators of $8,670. If required, replacing a pin will require about 1 work hour, and required parts cost $1,680, for a cost per helicopter of $1,765. The cost to replace a bolt or nut is minimal.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

(2) If any part is not installed as depicted in Figure 1 of BT 139-306, before further flight, disassemble items 2 through 8 and accomplish the following:

(i) Inspect each bolt and nut for corrosion. If there is any corrosion on a bolt or nut, remove the bolt and nut from service.

(ii) Inspect each pin for corrosion and damage. If there is any corrosion or damage:

(A) Remove the corrosion and damage with an abrasive stone or glass fiber brush.

(B) Measure the pin diameter. If the pin diameter is less than 25.36 mm (0.998 inch), remove the pin from service.

(iii) Inspect each pin for a crack. If there is a crack, remove the pin from service.

(iv) Dye penetrant inspect the pin flange for a crack. If there is a crack, remove the pin from service.

(3) If items 2 through 8 are installed as depicted in Figure 1 of BT 139-306, inspect each bolt head and nut for corrosion. If there is any corrosion on a bolt head or nut, before further flight, remove the bolt or nut from service.

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency AD No. 2012-0262, dated December 14, 2012, which you may view in the AD Docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 2013-0604.

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Model Duo Discus T gliders. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the instructions provided to inspect the propeller hub and blades are insufficient for detecting cracks and/or other damage, and other operating instructions provided by the flight and maintenance manual are incorrect and insufficient. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective January 28, 2014.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of January 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH, Krebenstrasse 25, 73230 Kirchheim/Teck, Germany; telephone: +49 7021 7298-0; fax: +49 7021 7298-199; email: info@schempp-hirth.com; Internet: http://www.schempp-hirth.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 29, 2013 (78 FR 45471). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

It was found that the accomplishment instructions provided to check the powered sailplane's propeller hub and blades were not sufficient to detect cracks and/or other damage. The results of a subsequent manual review revealed that some other operating instructions provided by the sailplane flight and maintenance manual were neither correct nor sufficient.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to operation of the powered sailplane outside its certified limits.

To address this unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2013-0012 to require amendment of sailplane flight- and maintenance manuals to correct the operating instruction deficiencies and inaccuracies and, for Arcus T sailplanes that had been repaired before the applicable maintenance manual update, an elevator or wing flap hinge moment weight check, as applicable.

For the reasons described above, this AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0012, which is superseded, and requires, for certain Duo Discus T powered sailplanes, the use of instructions as provided in TN 890-13 issue 2.

The MCAI requires exchange of flight manual pages (which introduces a repetitive inspection of the power plant), exchange of maintenance manual pages, exchange of cockpit placards, and transfer of weight and balance data. EASA AD No.: 2013-0054, dated March 5, 2013, supersedes EASA AD No. 2013-0012, dated January 15, 2013. No FAA action was taken on EASA AD No. 2013-0012. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0661-0002.Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 45471, July 29, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 45471, July 29, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 45471, July 29, 2013).

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 5 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2.5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $50 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,312.50, or $262.50 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $3,840, for a cost of $4,265 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-;2013-0661-0002; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the instructions provided to inspect the propeller hub and blades are insufficient for detecting cracks and/or other damage, and other operating instructions provided by the flight and maintenance manual are incorrect and insufficient. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the instructions for inspecting the propeller hub and blades are sufficient to detect cracks and/or other damage and instructions of the flight and maintenance manual are correct and sufficient.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the following actions as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(6) of this AD, including all subparagraphs:

(3) The actions required by paragraph (f)(1) and (f)(2)(i) of this AD may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD following 14 CFR § 43.9 (a)(1) through (4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

(4) Initially within 30 days after January 28, 2014 (the effective date of this AD) and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 calendar months, visually inspect (pre-flight) the power plant (propeller hub and propeller blades) for cracks or other damage using the following service information in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and (f)(4)(ii) of this AD:

The flight manual references TN 890-13 and MB 890-8; however, neither are part of the flight manual. Also, MB 890-8 does not apply to the airplanes included in the Applicability of this AD.

(5) If any cracks or other damage is found during any inspection required by paragraph (f)(4) of this AD, before further flight, replace any parts found with cracks and repair any damage.

(6) The revised SFM pages require pre-flight checks that may be done by the pilot. However, the inspection actions required in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD, to include all subparagraphs, are separate from the pilot pre-flight checks and must be done by a properly certificated aircraft mechanic.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: jim.rutherford@faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2013-0054, dated March 5, 2013, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail; D=FAA-2013-0661-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

to paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (i)(2)(iii) of this AD: This service information contains German to English translation. EASA used the English translation in referencing the documents from Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH. For enforceability purposes, we will refer to the Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH service information as the titles appear on the documents.

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2, 1K1, 1S, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. This AD requires a one-time inspection of the free turbine (FT) module (M04) for the affected Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 engines and, if a discrepancy is found, repair of the affected module. This AD was prompted by a “chip illumination event” in flight on a Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 engine. We are issuing this AD to prevent a loss of FT bearing lubrication, resulting in FT module failure, damage to the engine, and damage to the aircraft.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective January 28, 2014.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (phone: 800-647-5527) is provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2013 (78 FR 48824). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

A “chip light illumination” event in flight on an ARRIEL 1C2 engine was reported to Turbomeca. Following the event, which resulted from Free Turbine front bearing deterioration, the investigation revealed that the loss of the Free Turbine (FT) bearing module has led to a major disruption in the lubrication of the FT module (M04) bearings. The root cause of the event has been attributed to incorrect bonding of the Free Turbine Bearing Plug, accomplished during the repair process in an identified Repair Center. Consequently, it was possible to identify a batch of Modules M04 which are potentially affected.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0557-0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 48824, August 12, 2013).

Conclusion

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect about 5 engines of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 hour per product to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts will cost about $13 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,765.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

This AD was prompted by a “chip illumination event” in flight on a Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1 engine. We are issuing this AD to prevent a loss of FT bearing lubrication, resulting in FT module failure, damage to the engine, and damage to the aircraft.

(e) Actions and Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

(1) For Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 engines with an FT module (M04) with a part and serial number listed in Figure 2 of Turbomeca S.A. Alert MSB No. A292 72 0838, Version A, dated May 24, 2013, within 50 flight hours (FHs) from the effective date of this AD, inspect the FT module (M04). Use the instructions in paragraph 6 of Turbomeca S.A. Alert MSB No. A292 72 0838, Version A, dated May 24, 2013 to do the inspection.

(2) For Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1E2, 1K1, 1S, and 1S1 engines with an FT module (M04) with a part and serial number listed in Figure 2 of Turbomeca S.A. Alert MSB No. A292 72 0838, Version A, dated May 24, 2013, within 300 FHs from the effective date of this AD, inspect the FT module (M04). Use the instructions in paragraph 6 of Turbomeca S.A. Alert MSB No. A292 72 0838, Version A, dated May 24, 2013, to do the inspection.

(3) If you find that the FT module (M04) is not eligible for return to service, remove the FT module (M04) before further flight.

(f) Installation Prohibition

After the effective date of this AD, do not install any affected FT module (M04) with a part and serial number listed in Figure 2 of Turbomeca S.A. Alert MSB No. A292 72 0838, Version A, dated May 24, 2013, onto any engine, or an engine with an affected FT module (M04) onto any helicopter, unless the module has passed the inspections required by paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.

(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2013-0120, dated June 4, 2013, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0557-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

The FAA is correcting a direct final rule published on April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18556). In that rule, the FAA amended its regulations to revise the fee requirement for issuance of airman certificates. This document amends one paragraph that unintentionally expanded the FAA's ability to refuse issuance of airman certificates to U.S. citizens and resident aliens, removes two paragraphs that were inadvertently left in one subsection, and renumbers the paragraphs and revises cross-references accordingly.

In 2007, the FAA published a direct final rule revising the fee requirement of 14 CFR 61.13 for the issuance of an airman certificate by extending the fee requirement to all applicants outside the United States regardless of citizenship. 72 FR 18556, 18558 (Apr. 12, 2007). The FAA is now issuing a technical amendment to § 61.13 because the revision to the fee requirement inadvertently expanded the Administrator's authority to refuse to issue a U.S. airman certificate, rating, or authorization to U.S. citizens and resident aliens. Formerly, that provision had been limited to applicants who were non-resident aliens.

The FAA is also removing paragraphs (A) and (B) from paragraph (a)(2)(i) because those paragraphs were inadvertently left in § 61.13 due to erroneous amendatory instructions in the April 12, 2007 direct final rule. 72 FR 18558. Finally, the FAA is renumbering the paragraphs of § 61.13 and updating cross-references to reflect these revisions.

Technical Amendment

Section 61.13 establishes the requirements for the issuance of airman certificates, ratings, and authorizations. Prior to issuance of the 2007 direct final rule, § 61.13(a)(2) stated that an applicant for a certificate, rating, or authorization “who is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident alien of the United States” must (i) show evidence of fees paid for airman certification services outside the United States, and (ii) may be refused issuance of any U.S. airman certificate, rating or authorization by the Administrator.1 In the 2007 direct final rule, the FAA amended the § 61.13(a)(2) introductory text by removing the language which specifically applied the section to non-U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens. The FAA explained in the preamble that the intention of the rule change was to ensure that fees for airman certification services outside the United States were paid even by U.S. citizens. In changing the introductory text to § 61.13(a)(2), however, the FAA inadvertently extended the Administrator's authority to refuse an airman certificate to all applicants regardless of citizenship. The FAA is issuing this technical amendment to correct this error. As amended, the Administrator's ability to refuse an airman certificate will apply only to non-U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens while retaining application of the fee requirement in § 61.13(a)(2) to all applicants applying outside the United States regardless of citizenship.

1 Under 49 U.S.C. 44703(e)(1), the Administrator may “restrict or prohibit issuing an airman certificate to an alien[.]”

The FAA is also correcting a minor error to paragraphs (A) and (B) of § 61.13(a)(2)(i). In the 2007 direct final rule, the FAA stated in the amendatory instructions to § 61.13 that it was revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)(2) and (a)(2)(i), but did not explicitly state it was removing paragraphs (A) and (B) of that paragraph. As a result, paragraphs (A) and (B) of (a)(2)(i) were inadvertently retained. This technical edit will correct that error. In addition, the FAA is renumbering § 61.13(a)(2)(ii) as § 61.13(a)(3), and § 61.13(a)(3) as § 61.13(a)(4), and revising a cross-reference in the newly created § 61.13(a)(4) to reflect these changes in numbering.

Because the amendment corrects an error and imposes no new burden, the FAA finds that the notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. Because the changes in this technical amendment result in no substantive change, the FAA finds good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(a) Application. (1) An applicant for an airman certificate, rating, or authorization under this part must make that application on a form and in a manner acceptable to the Administrator.

(2) An applicant must show evidence that the appropriate fee prescribed in appendix A to part 187 of this chapter has been paid when that person applies for airmen certification services administered outside the United States.

(3) An applicant who is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident alien of the United States may be refused issuance of any U.S. airman certificate, rating or authorization by the Administrator.

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, an applicant who satisfactorily accomplishes the training and certification requirements for the certificate, rating, or authorization sought is entitled to receive that airman certificate, rating, or authorization.

The FAA is correcting a final rule published on July 15, 2013 (78 FR 42324). In that rule, the FAA amended its regulations to create new certification and qualification requirements for pilots in air carrier operations. The FAA unintentionally required without notice and comment a pilot serving as a second in command in part 135 commuter operations to have an airline transport pilot certificate and an aircraft type rating, and a pilot in command in part 135 commuter operations to have 1,000 hours of air carrier experience. This document corrects those errors and makes several additional miscellaneous corrections.

On July 15, 2013, the FAA published a final rule entitled, “Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations” (78 FR 42324). In that final rule, which became effective July 15, 2013, the FAA revised the pilot certificate requirements for a second in command (SIC) in part 121 operations. Specifically, § 121.436(a) requires a pilot in command to have an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate, an aircraft type rating for the aircraft flown, and 1,000 hours of air carrier experience obtained as SIC in part 121 operations, as pilot in command (PIC) in operations conducted under §§ 135.243(a)(1), as PIC in operations conducted under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i), or any combination thereof. Section 121.436(b) requires the SIC to hold an ATP certificate and an aircraft type rating for the airplane flown.

The FAA intended these certification requirements to apply only to pilots serving in part 121 operations. Existing § 135.3 states, however, that each certificate holder that conducts commuter operations under part 135 with airplanes in which two pilots are required by the aircraft type certificate shall comply with subparts N and O of part 121 instead of the requirements of subparts E, G, and H of part 135. Because the certification requirements in § 121.436 are located in subpart O of part 121, a PIC serving in part 135 commuter operations in airplanes that require two pilots by type certificate would be required by reference to comply with the new 1,000-hour air carrier experience requirement. Likewise, an SIC in those operations would now be required by reference to hold an ATP certificate and an aircraft type rating. The FAA did not discuss this issue in the preamble to the final rule nor did the FAA intend to impose this requirement on part 135 commuter operations.

Technical Amendment

Because the FAA did not intend to impose additional requirements on PICs and SICs serving in part 135 commuter operations that require two pilots by type certificate, the FAA is revising § 135.3(b) to clarify that an SIC in part 135 commuter operations does not need to comply with § 121.436(b) but may continue to hold a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating. The FAA is also amending § 121.436(a) to make clear that the 1,000 hour air carrier experience requirement applies only to PICs in part 121 operations.

The FAA is also making a number of minor corrections that have been identified since publication of the final rule. The FAA is amending § 61.35 to clarify the age requirements for applicants who take the knowledge test for an ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating prior to August 1, 2014. The final rule established that applicants who take the knowledge test for an ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine rating on or after August 1, 2014, must be at least 18 years old. 14 C.F.R. § 61.35(a)(3)(iii)(B). This age was established by subtracting 60 months, which will be the validity period for the ATP multiengine knowledge test, from the minimum age of 23 for an unrestricted ATP certificate. Although discussed in guidance materials, § 61.35 is silent with regard to the age requirement for applicants who take the existing ATP knowledge test before August 1, 2014. This amendment clarifies that an applicant for an ATP knowledge test taken prior to August 1, 2014, which has a validity period of 24 months, must be at least 21 years of age.

The FAA is also revising § 61.39(a)(1)(ii) to clarify that the 60-month expiration period for the knowledge test for an ATP certificate with a multiengine class rating applies to knowledge tests taken after July 31, 2014. As noted in the preamble to the final rule, the FAA is revising the ATP knowledge test to incorporate the new aeronautical knowledge areas in the airline transport pilot certification training program (ATP CTP). 78 FR 42324, 42342. Although applicants for the knowledge test may complete the ATP CTP prior to August 1, 2014, the revised knowledge test upon which the 60-month expiration date is based will not be available until August 1, 2014. As such, the FAA has added the relevant date to § 61.39(a)(1)(ii) for clarity. All knowledge tests for the ATP certificate taken prior to August 1, 2014, will continue to have a 24-month expiration date.

The FAA is making two clarifying amendments to § 61.159. Section 61.159(a)(3) is revised to clarify that the 25 hours of aeronautical experience in a full flight simulator must be appropriate to the class of aircraft (e.g. multiengine-land) for the rating sought. Section 61.159(a)(6) is revised to clarify that applicants for the restricted privileges ATP certificate may credit 100 hours of time accomplished in flight simulation training devices (full flight simulators and flight training devices) toward the total aeronautical experience requirements in § 61.160. As currently written, § 61.159(a)(6) could be construed as allowing only applicants for an ATP certificate under the aeronautical experience requirements in § 61.159 to credit time in a flight simulation training device. It was not the FAA's intention to prevent applicants for the restricted privileges ATP certificate from utilizing that provision.

The FAA is clarifying in § 61.165(f)(2) that applicants seeking to add a multiengine class rating to an ATP certificate with a single engine class rating are only required to take a new knowledge test after July 31, 2014—the date that the new knowledge test that incorporates the aeronautical knowledge areas specific to the ATP CTP will be available.

Finally, the FAA is correcting two cross-reference errors. In § 61.167, the FAA is correcting the reference in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to reflect paragraph (a)(2)(i) rather than (b)(1). The FAA is also revising § 135.341(a) by replacing the reference to paragraph (c) with the proper reference to § 135.336.

Because these amendments clarify existing requirements and result in no substantive change, the FAA finds that the notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. For the same reason, the FAA finds good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the amendments effective in less than 30 days.

List of Subjects14 CFR Part 61

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 121

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 135

Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

Correcting Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration is amending chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(3) Proper identification at the time of application that contains the applicant's—

(i) Photograph;

(ii) Signature;

(iii) Date of birth, which shows:

(A) For issuance of certificates other than the ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating, the applicant meets or will meet the age requirements of this part for the certificate sought before the expiration date of the airman knowledge test report;

(B) Prior to August 1, 2014, for issuance of an ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating under the aeronautical experience requirements of §§ 61.159 or 61.160, the applicant is at least 21 years of age at the time of the knowledge test; and

(C) After July 31, 2014, for issuance of an ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating obtained under the aeronautical experience requirements of §§ 61.159 or 61.160, the applicant is at least 18 years of age at the time of the knowledge test;

(iv) If the permanent mailing address is a post office box number, then the applicant must provide a current residential address.

(ii) Within the 60-calendar month period preceding the month the applicant completes the practical test for those applicants who complete the airline transport pilot certification training program in § 61.156 and pass the knowledge test for an airline transport pilot certificate with a multiengine class rating after July 31, 2014;

(3) 50 hours of flight time in the class of airplane for the rating sought. A maximum of 25 hours of training in a full flight simulator representing the class of airplane for the rating sought may be credited toward the flight time requirement of this paragraph if the training was accomplished as part of an approved training course in parts 121, 135, 141, or 142 of this chapter. A flight training device or aviation training device may not be used to satisfy this requirement.

(6) Not more than 100 hours of the total aeronautical experience requirements of paragraph (a) of this section or § 61.160 may be obtained in a full flight simulator or flight training device provided the device represents an airplane and the aeronautical experience was accomplished as part of an approved training course in parts 121, 135, 141, or 142 of this chapter.

(3) If serving as pilot in command in part 121 operations, has 1,000 hours as second in command in operations under this part, pilot in command in operations under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) of this chapter, pilot in command in operations under § 135.243(a)(1) of this chapter, or any combination thereof. For those pilots who are employed as pilot in command in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013, compliance with the requirements of this paragraph (a)(3) is not required.

PART 135—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT9. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(b) Each certificate holder that conducts commuter operations under this part with airplanes in which two pilots are required by the type certification rules of this chapter shall comply with subparts N and O of part 121 of this chapter instead of the requirements of subparts E, G, and H of this part. Notwithstanding the requirements of this paragraph, a pilot serving under this part as second in command in a commuter operation with airplanes in which two pilots are required by the type certification rules of this chapter may meet the requirements of § 135.245 instead of the requirements of § 121.436.

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the Federal Register of October 23, 2013 (78 FR 63019). The document established a standard for bassinets and cradles that incorporates by reference ASTM F2194-13, with certain modifications. The Commission is correcting two references to sections of ASTM F2194-13.

The Commission published a final rule establishing a standard for bassinets and cradles that incorporates by reference ASTM F2194-13, with certain modifications. In FR Doc. 2013-24023, appearing on page 63019 in the Federal Register of October 23, 2013, two references to sections of ASTM F2194-13 were not correct.

The following corrections are made:

§ 1218.2 [Corrected]1. On page 63034, in the third column, in § 1218.2, in paragraph (b)(1)(i), “In addition, bassinet/cradle attachments to cribs or play yards, as defined in 3.1.2 or 3.1.12, are included in the scope of the standard when in the bassinet/cradle use mode.” is corrected to read: “In addition, bassinet/cradle attachments to cribs or play yards, as defined in 3.1.2 or 3.1.13, are included in the scope of the standard when in the bassinet/cradle use mode.”2. On page 63035, in the second column, in § 1218.2, in paragraph (b)(5)(vi), “The bassinet bed shall not tip over and shall retain the CAMI newborn dummy when tested in accordance with 7.12.5.3.” is corrected to read: “The bassinet bed shall not tip over and shall retain the CAMI newborn dummy when tested in accordance with 7.12.4.3.”Dated: December 18, 2013.Todd Stevenson,Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.[FR Doc. 2013-30527 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6355-01-PDEPARTMENT OF ENERGYFederal Energy Regulatory Commission18 CFR Part 40[Docket No. RM13-7-000; Order No. 793]Protection System Maintenance Reliability StandardAGENCY:

1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission approves a revised Reliability Standard, PRC-005-2—Protection System Maintenance, to supersede four existing Reliability Standards, PRC-005-1.1b (Transmission and Generation Protection System Maintenance and Testing), PRC-008-0 (Underfrequency Load Shedding Equipment Maintenance), PRC-011-0 (Undervoltage Load Shedding Equipment Maintenance) and PRC-017-0 (Special Protection System Maintenance and Testing), and six associated definitions. The modifications, in part, respond to certain Commission directives issued in Order No. 693,2 in which the Commission approved initial versions of these four Reliability Standards governing maintenance and testing of protection systems, and maintenance of underfrequency and undervoltage load shedding equipment.

2. Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 represents an improvement over the four existing standards covering protection system maintenance and testing, by incorporating specific, required minimum maintenance activities and maximum time intervals for maintenance of individual components of protection systems and load shedding equipment affecting the bulk electric system. While the proposed Reliability Standard also gives responsible entities the option of developing their own, performance-based maintenance intervals for most components, the intervals must be designed to achieve a minimum performance level, and must be adjusted if that target performance level is not actually achieved. In addition, the proposed Reliability Standard combines the maintenance and testing requirements for protection systems into one comprehensive Reliability Standard, as was suggested by the Commission in Order No. 693.3

3 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1475.

3. While the revised Reliability Standard contains overall improvements over the four existing Reliability Standards, as discussed below, we are directing NERC to submit an informational filing on the development of a guidance report concerning the commissioning of power system protection systems.

4. The Commission approves the violation risk factors and all but one violation severity level for the revised Reliability Standard. The Commission directs NERC to modify the violation severity level assigned to certain failures to comply with Requirement R1. We also approve the six new definitions associated with proposed Reliability Standard PRC-005-2, i.e., Component, Component Type, Countable Event, Protection System Maintenance Program, Segment, and Unresolved Maintenance Issue. Of these newly defined terms, only the term Protection System Maintenance Program will be incorporated into NERC's Glossary of Terms, with the remainder applying only to Reliability Standard PRC-005-2.

5. Finally, we approve NERC's proposed implementation plan for Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 (as corrected in NERC's October 30, 2013 Errata filing), which requires entities to develop a compliant protection system maintenance program within twelve months, but allows for the transition over time of maintenance activities and documentation to conform to the new minimum maintenance activities and maximum maintenance intervals.

I. BackgroundA. Regulatory Background

6. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval.4 Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.5

4 16 U.S.C. 824o(c) and (d).

5See id. at 824o(e).

7. In 2006, the Commission certified NERC as the ERO pursuant to FPA section 215.6 In 2007, in Order No. 693, the Commission approved an initial set of Reliability Standards submitted by NERC, including initial versions of four protection system and load-shedding-related maintenance standards, i.e., PRC-005-1, PRC-008-0, PRC-011-0, and PRC-017-0.7

8. In approving these protection system-related Reliability Standards, the Commission directed NERC to develop or to consider a number of modifications. Specifically, the Commission directed NERC (1) to develop a revision to PRC-005-1 incorporating a maximum time interval during which to conduct maintenance and testing of protection systems, and (2) to consider combining into one standard the various maintenance and testing requirements for all of the maintenance and testing-related Reliability Standards for protection systems, Special Protection Systems (SPS), underfrequency load shedding (UFLS) equipment, and undervoltage load shedding (UVLS) equipment.8

9. Subsequently, in Order No. 758, issued in response to NERC's request for approval of its interpretation of PRC-005-1, the Commission issued three additional directives addressing deficiencies in the existing version of Reliability Standard PRC-005.9 The Commission directed NERC to modify Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 through its standards development process to (1) identify and include the auxiliary relays and non-electrical sensing devices designed to sense or take action against any abnormal system condition that will affect reliable operation (such as sudden pressure relays); (2) include specific requirements for maintenance and testing of reclosing relays that affect the reliable operation of the bulk-power system; and (3) include specific requirements for maintenance and testing of DC control circuitry.

10. Under currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-005-1b, transmission owners, generator owners, and applicable distribution providers are required to have “a Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that affect the reliability of the BES,” and must document their compliance with that program.10 The program must include maintenance and testing intervals and their basis, and a summary of maintenance and testing procedures. However, Reliability Standard PRC-005-1b does not impose any specific requirements regarding maintenance activities, standards or intervals. Similarly, Reliability Standards PRC-008-0, PRC-011-0, and PRC-017-0 require applicable transmission owners, distribution providers, and generator owners to have a maintenance and testing program in place for UFLS equipment, UVLS equipment, and special protection systems, respectively, and to document their compliance with their program. These Reliability Standards, like PRC-005-1b, do not impose any specific requirements regarding maintenance activities, standards or intervals.

10 NERC Reliability Standard PRC-005-1b, Requirements R1 and R2.

C. NERC Petition and Reliability Standard PRC-005-2

11. On February 26, 2013, NERC submitted a petition seeking approval of Reliability Standard PRC-005-2, six new definitions associated with that standard, and an implementation plan that includes retirement of the four currently-effective Reliability Standards that address maintenance and testing of transmission and generation protection systems, UFLS and UVLS equipment, and special protection systems.11 NERC maintained that the Reliability Standard not only consolidates the four currently-effective standards into a single standard, but also addresses the directives in Order No. 693 related to those standards.12

11 PRC-005-2 is not attached to this Final Rule. The complete text of the Reliability Standard is available on the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM13-7 and is posted on NERC's Web site, available at: http://www.nerc.com.

12 NERC Petition at 2. NERC states that while the Commission issued additional directives related to the PRC-005 Reliability Standard in Order No. 758, NERC will address these remaining directives in future versions of PRC-005, and is currently addressing the maintenance and testing of reclosing relays in a new phase of Project 2007-17. See NERC Petition at 7-8.

12. The Reliability Standard includes five requirements. Under Requirement R1, each responsible entity must establish a protection system maintenance program that: (1) identifies which method (time-based or performance-based) will be used for each protection system component type, except that the maintenance program for all batteries associated with the station DC supply of a protection system must be time-based, and (2) identifies monitored component attributes for each component type where monitoring is used as a basis for extending maintenance intervals.

13. Under Requirement R2, any responsible entity that uses performance-based maintenance intervals must follow the procedures set out in Attachment A of the Reliability Standard to set and to adjust, as necessary, appropriate maintenance intervals. The Attachment A procedures allow a responsible entity to establish maintenance intervals for a given population of similar components based on historical performance, as long as there is a statistically significant population of components for which performance can be examined and monitored. For example, under the Attachment A procedures, a responsible entity can only use a performance-based interval for “segments” with a component population of at least 60 components.13 The maximum allowable maintenance interval for a given segment is required to be set such that the segment will experience “countable events” of no more than four percent of the components within that segment, for the greater of either the last 30 components maintained or all components maintained in the previous year.14

13 NERC defines “segment” for purposes of PRC-005-2 as “Protection Systems or components of a consistent design standard, or a particular model or type from a single manufacturer that typically share other common elements. Consistent performance is expected across the entire population of a Segment.” NERC Petition, Ex. B (PRC-005-2) at 26.

14 NERC defines “countable event” as “a failure of a component requiring repair or replacement, any condition discovered during the maintenance activities in Tables 1-1 through 1-5 and Table 3 which requires corrective action, or a Misoperation attributed to hardware failure or calibration failure.” NERC Petition, Ex. B (PRC-005-2) at 26.

14. In addition, to continue to utilize a performance-based interval, the responsible entity must update its list of components and segments annually (or whenever a change occurs within a segment), must maintain a minimum number or percentage of components a year, and must analyze a given segment's maintenance record to determine the percentage of countable events. If the percentage of countable events for the last 30 components maintained or the number of components maintained over the last year (whichever is larger) exceeds four percent, the responsible entity must implement an action plan to reduce the expected countable events to less than four percent for that segment within the next three years.

15. Requirements R3 and R4 require a responsible entity to adhere to the requirements of its protection system maintenance program, including performance of minimum maintenance activities. Under Requirement R3, which governs time-based maintenance, the activities must be performed in accordance with the intervals prescribed in the tables attached to PRC-005-2. Under Requirement R4, the activities must be carried out in accordance with the performance-based intervals established under Requirement R2 and Attachment A.

16. Under Requirement R5, responsible entities must “demonstrate efforts to correct identified Unresolved Maintenance Issues,” which are defined as “deficienc[ies] identified during a maintenance activity that cause[] the component to not meet the intended performance, cannot be corrected during the maintenance interval, and require[] follow-up corrective action.” NERC explained that the intent of Requirement R5 is “to assure that Protection System components are returned to working order following the discovery of failures or malfunctions during scheduled maintenance.” 15

15 NERC Petition at 18.

17. With respect to implementation, NERC proposed to require entities to fully comply with Requirements R1, R2, and R5 within 12 months of regulatory approval (or 24 months from the date of NERC Board approval where no regulatory approval is required).16 Accordingly, applicable entities in the United States must develop their revised protection system maintenance program within one year after regulatory approval.17 NERC's proposed implementation plan would allow a longer implementation period with respect to achieving full compliance with the newly-prescribed maintenance activities and documentation, permitting a transition of maintenance activities and documentation over time, with the compliance period scaled to the length of the applicable maximum maintenance interval.18 Thus, for component types with the shortest allowable maintenance interval (i.e., less than one year, or between one and two years), entities would be required to fully comply with the new requirements within 18 months of regulatory approval, and 36 months of regulatory approval, respectively.19 For components types with longer maintenance intervals (3, 6, and 12 years), NERC proposed to require compliance over the applicable maintenance interval in equally distributed steps. For component types with the longest maximum allowable maintenance interval (i.e., 12 years), entities must be 30 percent compliant within 5 years, 60 percent compliant within 9 years, and fully compliant within 13 years after regulatory approval.20

16 NERC Petition, Ex. C (Implementation Plan) at 2, 4.

17See id.

18Id. at 1-2.

19Id. at 4.

20Id. at 5. NERC notes, however, that “[o]nce an entity has designated PRC-005-2 as its maintenance program for specific Protection System components, they cannot revert to the original program for those components.” Id. at 2.

18. NERC explained that this implementation program takes into consideration that certain entities may not currently be performing all required maintenance activities specified in proposed PRC-005-2, and may not have all the documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance.21 NERC further stated that “it is unrealistic for those entities to be immediately compliant with the new activities or intervals,” and that “entities should be allowed to become compliant in such a way as to facilitate a continuing maintenance program.” 22 Finally, NERC explained that it developed this step-wise implementation plan “in order that entities may implement this standard in a systematic method that facilitates an effective ongoing Protection System Maintenance Program.” 23

21Id. at 1.

22Id.

23Id. at 2.

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Subsequent Filings

19. On July 18, 2013, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve Reliability Standard PRC-005-2.24 The Commission explained that the revised standard represents an improvement over the four existing standards covering protection system maintenance and testing, because it incorporates specific, required minimum maintenance activities and maximum time intervals for maintenance of individual components of protection systems and load shedding equipment affecting the bulk electric system.25 The Commission further noted that although the proposed Reliability Standard would give entities the option of developing performance-based maintenance intervals for eligible components, those intervals have to be designed to achieve a minimum performance level and must be adjusted if the target performance level is not achieved.26

20. The Commission requested additional information and comment on three topics pertaining to PRC-005-2: (1) Verification of operability and settings upon placement in-service of new or modified protection systems; (2) use of a four percent target for countable events in performance-based programs; and (3) violation severity levels for certain Requirement R1 violations.

21. Comments were due on the NOPR on September 23, 2013. Seven sets of comments were received, as identified in Appendix A to this Final Rule.

22. On October 30, 2013, NERC submitted an errata to its February 26, 2013 petition, stating that certain procedural language regarding the process for approval of the standard was inadvertently omitted. NERC submitted a revised Implementation Plan as part of that errata, asking the Commission to consider the revised plan for purposes of proposed PRC-005-2 and this proceeding.

II. Discussion

23. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we approve Reliability Standard PRC-005-2, the six associated definitions referenced in the proposed standard, and NERC's proposed implementation plan, as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. As discussed in section A below, we believe Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 will enhance reliability through reducing the risk of protection system misoperations by establishing minimum maintenance activities and maximum maintenance time intervals. The Reliability Standard will also reduce the risk of protection system misoperations by establishing requirements for condition-based and performance-based maintenance programs where hands-on maintenance intervals are adjusted to reflect the known and reported condition or the historical performance of the relevant devices.

24. Below, we discuss the matters raised by the Commission in the NOPR or raised by commenters in response to the NOPR, as follows: (A) Approval of PRC-005-2; (B) application of PRC-005-2 to newly-commissioned or modified components; (C) four percent target for countable events; (D) correcting unresolved maintenance issues; (E) the Violation Severity Level assignment for Requirement R1; and (F) definitions.

A. Approval of PRC-005-2 NERC Petition

25. In its petition seeking approval of PRC-005-2, NERC maintained that the proposed standard will improve reliability by:

(i) Defining and establishing criteria for a Protection System Maintenance Program; (ii) reducing the risk of Protection System Misoperations; (iii) clearly stating the applicability of the Requirements in proposed PRC-005-2 to certain Functional Entities and Facilities; (iv) establishing Requirements for time-based maintenance programs that include maximum allowable maintenance intervals for all relevant devices; and (v) establishing Requirements for condition-based and performance-based maintenance programs where hands-on maintenance intervals are adjusted to reflect the known and reported condition or the historical performance, respectively, of the relevant devices.27

27 NERC Petition at 3.

26. NERC asserted that the Reliability Standard not only represents a comprehensive approach to documenting and implementing programs for maintenance of all protection systems affecting the reliability of the bulk electric system, but also reduces the risk of misoperations “by applying consistent, best practice maintenance and inspection activities of Protection System Components in accordance with the maximum intervals established in the proposed Reliability Standard.” 28NERC maintained that the proposed Reliability Standard represents an improvement over the four standards that would be superseded, because none of the existing standards contain technical requirements for any of the maintenance programs, but merely specify that a program be in place and that each responsible entity comply with the requirements of its own program.29

28Id. at 11.

29Id.

27. NERC also maintained that PRC-005-2 satisfies three outstanding directives from Order No. 693 related to the PRC maintenance standards. First, NERC explained that the Reliability Standard includes maximum allowable intervals for maintenance of protection system components (as set out in Tables 1-1 through 1-5, Table 2, and Table 3 of Reliability Standard PRC-005-2).30 Second, Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 combines the requirements for PRC-005, PRC-008, PRC-011 and PRC-017 into one new, revised standard, addressing maintenance for transmission and generation protection systems, for special protection systems, and for UFLS and UVLS equipment.31 Finally, in Order No. 693, the Commission directed NERC to consider whether load serving entities and transmission operators should be included in the applicability of PRC-004.32 NERC maintained that it considered whether load-serving entities and transmission operators should be subject to any of the PRC maintenance and testing requirements, but determined that the applicable maintenance requirements need only apply to equipment owners such as generation owners, transmission owners, and certain distribution providers.33 NERC explained that “[w]hile an equipment owner may need to coordinate with the operating entities in order to schedule the actual maintenance, the responsibility resides with the equipment owners to complete the required maintenance.” 34

30Id. at 12.

31Id. at 12-13.

32 Order No. 693, FERC Stats & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1469.

33 NERC Petition at 13.

34Id.

NOPR Proposal

28. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve Reliability Standard PRC-005-2, finding that it would enhance reliability by incorporating specific, required minimum activities and maximum time intervals for maintenance of individual components of protection systems and load shedding equipment affecting the bulk electric system.35 The Commission further noted that the proposed Reliability Standard would give entities the option of developing performance-based maintenance intervals for eligible components, but that those intervals had to be designed to achieve a minimum performance level and must be adjusted if the target performance level is not achieved.36 Finally, in the NOPR the Commission stated that Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 “appears to adequately address the Commission directives from Order No. 693 with respect to: (1) Including maximum allowable intervals in PRC-005; (2) combining PRC-005, PRC-008, PRC-011, and PRC-017; and (3) considering whether load serving entities and transmission operators should be included in the applicability of the PRC-005 Reliability Standard.”37

35 NOPR, 144 FERC ¶ 61,055 at P 2.

36Id.

37Id. P 22.

Comments

29. Most commenters generally support the Commission's proposed approval of PRC-005-2. ITC “supports NERC's proposal as improving Bulk Electric System reliability and promoting efficiency through consolidation [of protection system-related standards] into a single Standard.” 38 The Bureau of Reclamation states that the revised standard “is a significant improvement over the current PRC-005-1 standard because the current standard is more likely to penalize an entity that develops an ambitious maintenance program than an entity that has a less robust maintenance program. . . .” 39

38 ITC Comments at 4.

39 Bureau of Reclamation Comments at 1.

30. Duke Energy, however, asks that the Commission reject the revised standard. Duke Energy argues that PRC-005-2 improperly expands the applicability of the protection system maintenance standard because, “as written, it could also apply to Protection Systems which detect faults on the Bulk Electric System (BES), but which don't affect the reliable operation of the BES.” 40 Duke Energy argues that the Reliability Standard, as written, would apply to one of Duke Energy's typical protection schemes for dispersed, non-BES generation at distribution stations, because the relays involved are designed to detect faults on the BES although these particular protection schemes do not operate BES elements or interrupt network current flow from the BES.41 Duke Energy maintains that these protection schemes initiate shutdown of non-BES generation only, and should not properly be covered under a protection system maintenance Reliability Standard. Duke Energy accordingly requests that the Commission remand the standard to NERC with a directive to limit applicability of the standard to protection systems and elements thereof “which affect the reliable operation of those BES Elements” on which they detect faults.42

40 Duke Energy Comments at 2. In particular, Duke Energy cites to applicability section 4.2.1, which pertains to “protection systems that are installed for the purpose of detecting Faults on BES Elements (lines, buses, transformers, etc.).”

41Id. at 3-4.

42Id. at 5.

Commission Determination

31. We find that Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 will enhance reliability as compared to the currently existing standards, and agree with ITC that PRC-005-2 promotes efficiency by consolidating protection system maintenance requirements into a single standard. Consistent with the NOPR, we believe that Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 should reduce the risk of protection system misoperations by setting out minimum maintenance activities and maximum maintenance time intervals for individual components of protection systems.43 In addition, we believe that PRC-005-2 will improve reliability by establishing requirements for condition-based and performance-based maintenance programs where maintenance intervals are adjusted to reflect the known and reported condition or the historical performance of the relevant devices. Finally, we agree with the Bureau of Reclamation that the revised standard removes the potential disincentive, inherent in the existing protection system maintenance standards, to adopt more aggressive maintenance programs because compliance is currently measured against each individual company's adopted program rather than against industry standards or minimums.

43See NOPR, 144 FERC ¶ 61,055 at P 2.

32. We are not persuaded by Duke Energy that remand of the Reliability Standard is required. Duke Energy argues that PRC-005-2 will bring a new set of protection system schemes under NERC's protection system maintenance standard requirements. We decline to make any specific determination about the applicability of this standard to specific elements or types of elements. Rather, Duke Energy may seek to raise concerns regarding applicability of the Reliability Standard to specific system elements with NERC or the relevant Regional Entity.

33. Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 does not include separate requirements for protection system commissioning testing for new or modified equipment (i.e., testing activities necessary to ensure that new or modified equipment has been built and will function in accordance with its design). NERC maintained in its petition that such testing is often performed by a different organization (such as a start-up or commissioning group of the organization, or a contractor hired to construct and start-up or commission the facility) than the organization responsible for the on-going maintenance of the protection system, and that the activities required for such testing will not necessarily correlate to the maintenance activities required by the proposed standard.44 At the same time, NERC acknowledged that “a thorough commission testing program would include, either directly or indirectly, the verification of all those Protection System attributes addressed by the maintenance activities specified in the Tables of PRC-005-2,” and that “an entity would be wise to retain commissioning records to show a maintenance start date.” 45

44 NERC Petition, Ex. E (Supplementary Reference and FAQ) at 35.

45Id. NERC also noted that an entity “that requires that their commissioning tests have, at a minimum, the requirements of PRC-005-2 would help that entity prove time interval maximums by setting the initial time clock.” Id.

NOPR Proposal

34. In the NOPR, the Commission noted its concern that PRC-005-2 does not include a requirement to verify that protection system equipment and components operate at least as accurately as required under the PRC-005-2 maintenance standards when those components are first placed in service or are modified, even though NERC has stated that such placement into service can be used as the starting point for the maintenance interval and even though a failure to verify the accurate functioning of protection system components when placed in service or when subsequently modified has contributed to misoperations in the past.46 The Commission accordingly asked for an explanation of “whether and if so, how [NERC] intends to interpret and enforce Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 to require that newly installed or modified protection system equipment or components perform at the same level as is required for subsequent compliance, including verification of applicable settings as specified whenever a relay is repaired, replaced, or upgraded with a new firmware version.” 47

46See NOPR, 144 FERC ¶ 61,055 at PP 25-27.

47Id. P 27.

35. In addition, if NERC did not believe it could interpret PRC-005-2 to require verification of operability and settings of protection system components at commissioning to the same performance level as is required for subsequent compliance with PRC-005-2, the Commission requested comment on whether such a modification to the standard should be made.48

48Id. P 28.

Comments

36. NERC, the Cooperatives, ITC and Oncor all object to the application of PRC-005-2 to newly-commissioned or newly-modified protection systems or components. NERC maintains that the proposed standard was not “designed to establish requirements for commission testing and such testing would go beyond the maintenance activities identified in proposed PRC-005-2.” 49 NERC accordingly asserts that it “cannot interpret and enforce proposed PRC-005-2 to require that newly installed or modified protection system equipment or components perform at the same level as is required for subsequent compliance.” 50

49 NERC Comments at 3.

50Id. However, NERC states in its comments, as it did in its petition, that “the date of completion of the commission testing of the Protection System component and its placement into service can be used by an entity as the starting point in determining first maintenance due dates.” Id. at 3-4 (citing to NERC Petition at 35-36).

37. NERC also provides information about its efforts to reduce protection system misoperations through improved commissioning testing practices, and asks that the Commission refrain from issuing a directive to modify PRC-005-2 to address commissioning testing until NERC completes that work and can determine whether it is sufficient to address commissioning testing.51 NERC states that these efforts include development of a report by the System Protection and Control Subcommittee (SPCS), recently approved by the NERC Planning Committee, in which the SPCS “suggested improving commissioning practices through (1) analysis of protection system Misoperations; (2) sharing of lessons learned; and (3) development of an industry reference document on protection system commissioning practices.” 52 With respect to the first recommendation, NERC suggests it is being addressed as part of entities' ongoing obligations under PRC-004-2a (Analysis and Mitigation of Transmission and Generation Protection System Misoperations).53 As for the second recommendation, NERC notes that the SPCS is working on a lessons learned document.54 As for the third recommendation, NERC indicates that it is participating in ongoing efforts of an IEEE task force, working on the development of a report to provide guidance on the commissioning of power system protection systems.55 NERC commits in its Comments to keep the Commission informed on the progress of these ongoing efforts to reduce protection system misoperations related to commissioning testing practices.56

51 NERC Comments at 4.

52Id. at 6.

53Id.

54Id.

55Id. at 7-8. Oncor agrees that the Commission should consider allowing NERC to continue its participation in efforts to create a document providing commissioning guidelines and best practices, instead of adding requirements to PRC-005-2. Oncor Comments at 1.

56 NERC Comments at 4.

38. The Cooperatives agree with NERC that PRC-005-2 cannot be read to include a requirement to verify operability and settings of new or modified protection system equipment, because there is no explicit language in the requirement that would allow such an interpretation and because it would disregard the standards development process.57 The Cooperatives argue that imposing a commissioning testing requirement as part of PRC-005-2 would constitute a material change to the standard, which must be addressed through the standards development process if needed.58 Similarly, ITC “strongly opposes” application of PRC-005-2 to commissioning of new components, and stresses that the proposed standard was developed solely for the purpose of covering “ongoing maintenance during the life of the component, and not an initial testing when the component is first commissioned.” 59 Oncor supports NERC's efforts to develop guidelines on commissioning testing practices instead of imposing additional requirements as part of PRC-005-2, and notes that there are many differences between commissioning testing and periodic maintenance testing. In addition, Oncor notes that PRC-004-2a is designed to identify deficiencies in performance and provide for correction, while PRC-005-2 is not a deficiency in performance standard.60

57 Cooperatives Comments at 3-4.

58Id. at 4.

59 ITC Comments at 6-7.

60 Oncor Comments at 1.

39. The Cooperatives also argue that the Commission should not require the development of a commissioning testing requirement that would require verification of protection system operability and settings, because such a requirement “would be redundant, difficult to formulate and enforce, and might affect some (but not all) Registered Entities' willingness to deploy new or upgraded protection systems.” 61

61 Cooperatives Comments at 5-8.

40. Idaho Power, on the other hand, believes that the Commission has identified a gap in the Reliability Standards that should be addressed by expanding PRC-005-2 to include newly-commissioned or modified equipment.

Commission Determination

41. While we remain concerned about the continued possibility of misoperations resulting from a failure to properly verify the operability or settings of protection system equipment upon being placed in service or modified, we will not direct NERC to modify PRC-005-2 to include such a requirement or to otherwise develop a separate commissioning testing standard at this time. Instead, we rely on NERC's discussion of its on-going efforts to reactively and proactively reduce protection system misoperations through improved commissioning testing practices, which includes the analysis of misoperations, sharing of lessons learned, and the development of a report intended to provide guidance concerning the commissioning of power system protection systems.62 As explained in the NOPR, our concern is with a protection system that has not been verified as capable of functioning according to its design when placed in service or modified. In its Comments, NERC describes an event studied by NERC's Event Analysis and Investigation Group, in which an entity did not perform in-service testing as part of commissioning a new protection system, “resulting in line relays being placed in service with the incorrect transformer ratio.” 63 According to NERC, this situation remained undetected until the protection system was required to operate for a system disturbance. That protection system failed to operate correctly due to the defect, consequently increasing the magnitude and scope of the system disturbance.64 We believe that this example, provided by NERC, highlights our concern and the importance of commissioning testing.

62See NERC Comments at 5-8.

63Id. at 4.

64Id.

42. We agree with a proactive approach to reducing misoperations, i.e., ensuring that a new or modified protection system, when placed in service, is capable of functioning according to its design so that an undetected defect resulting in a misoperation of that protection system does not negatively affect bulk electric system reliability. We encourage and accept NERC's commitment to keep the Commission informed of its efforts concerning this issue.65 Accordingly, we direct NERC to submit, within one year of issuance of this Final Rule, an informational filing on the status of these efforts, including the development of the guidance report as described in the NERC Comments.

43. Pursuant to Requirement R2 of Reliability Standard PRC-005-2, responsible entities may choose to establish performance-based maintenance intervals for individual component types, according to the procedures set out in Attachment A of the standard. Under these procedures, the responsible entity must first develop a list of components to be included in the designated segment (with a minimum population of 60 components).66 Using that analysis and looking at the greater of either the last 30 components maintained or all components maintained within the segment over the last year, the responsible entity must set a maximum allowable interval for each segment so that countable events will occur on no more than four percent of the components within that segment. In addition, the maintenance history of the segment is to be reviewed at least annually to determine the overall performance of the segment, and, if the four percent target is not met, the entity is required to develop and implement an action plan to reduce countable events to less than four percent within three years.67

66 Until such time as the entity has performed and analyzed the required maintenance activities applicable to the segment for at least 30 individual components, it must maintain the segment using PRC-005-2's time-based intervals, as specified in Tables 1-1 to 1-5, 2 and 3, i.e., it cannot adopt a performance-based interval until it has performed and analyzed the maintenance history for a minimum pool of components.

67 As NERC explains in the Supplementary Reference and FAQ (Ex. E) attached to its petition, entities using a performance-based program must not only “demonstrate how they analyze findings of performance failures and aberrations” but must also “implement continuous improvement actions” to meet the failure rate targets. See NERC Petition, Ex. E at 40.

44. Under PRC-005-2, an entity would not violate Requirement R2 upon failing to achieve a four percent or less failure rate for a given segment in the first year the failure occurs, but would violate Requirement R2 if: (1) The entity could not show that the interval selected was initially set to expect a failure rate of no more than four percent; (2) the entity fails to make immediate changes to its performance-based maintenance program to achieve a four percent target within 3 years; or (3) the entity does not actually achieve a four percent failure rate for that segment within 3 years after adjusting its program.68

68See generally id. at 40-53.

45. In the Technical Justification NERC submitted as part of its petition, NERC explained the basis for selecting a four percent target for countable events as follows:

The 4% number was developed using the following:

General experience of the drafting team based on open discussions of past performance.

Test results provided by Consumers Energy for the years 1998-2008 showing a yearly average of 7.5% out-of-tolerance relay test results and a yearly average of 1.5% defective rate.

46. In the NOPR, the Commission questioned whether NERC had provided sufficient support for the choice of a four percent target figure for countable events, particularly with respect to individual components known to have historically higher levels of reliability.70 The Commission requested support for NERC's proposed approach in PRC-005-2, which adopts a single failure rate target for all component types, as opposed to establishing a target failure rate for each individual component.71 In addition, the Commission sought comment on the selection of four percent as the appropriate target failure rate, assuming a blanket failure rate is used. Finally, the Commission proposed to direct NERC to study and submit a report and recommendations based on the study results concerning the expected failure rates for individual component types if the technical information to respond to the Commission's questions is not currently available.

70See NOPR, 144 FERC ¶ 61,055 at PP 32-33.

71Id. P 34.

Comments

47. NERC comments that it continues to support the four percent failure rate target, arguing that an “acceptable failure rate needs to balance between a goal of ultimate reliability and what could be reasonably expected of a well-performing component population.”72 NERC maintains that the four percent performance target was selected “based on the drafting team's experience and past studies performed by several utilities,” and references back to Section 9 of the Supplementary Reference and FAQ appended to its Petition.73 In those supplementary materials, the choice of a four percent failure rate is explained as follows:

72 NERC Comments at 10.

73Id. at 11.

It is notable that 4% is specifically chosen because an entity with a small population (30 units) would have to adjust its time intervals between maintenance if more than one Countable Event was found to have occurred during the last analysis period. A smaller percentage would require that entity to adjust the time interval between maintenance activities if even one unit is found out of tolerance or causes a Misoperation.74

74 NERC Petition, Ex. E (Supplementary Reference and FAQ) at 42.

48. NERC further maintains that “it is appropriate to use a specified target percentage in a performance based maintenance program when applied to the results of time based maintenance of various component types” because the “variable performance expectations for different types of components are already reflected in the Table 1 time intervals.” 75 Thus, NERC explains, components with high failure rates would not generate significant extensions in allowed maintenance intervals “unless dramatic advances in component reliability validate the use of significantly lower intervals.” 76 NERC further explains that extension of the maintenance interval will reduce the number of Countable Events for a given year, such that highly reliable components will have a low number of permitted “failures” per year.

75 NERC Comments at 11-12.

76Id. at 12.

49. NERC accordingly asks that the Commission approve the four percent target failure rate as proposed. In the alternative, if the Commission determines it needs additional information to support the four percent figure, NERC asks that it be given the opportunity to provide that additional support rather than have the Commission direct modification of the proposed standard. NERC also indicates that it will have the “ability to track trends in Misoperations as industry gains practical experience with the performance based maintenance approach reflected in proposed PRC-005-2.” 77

77Id. at 13.

50. Idaho Power, the only commenter other than NERC to address the four percent target failure rate, agrees with NERC that the four percent figure should be retained for all component types.78 Idaho Power believes that the cost of developing specific failure rates for component types would outweigh the benefit of doing so. Idaho Power points out the practical limitations of developing specific failure rates, which “would need to account for different manufacturers, models, operating environments, production plants, and handling,” and would need to be updated periodically.79

78 Idaho Power Comments at 2.

79Id.

Commission Determination

51. We are persuaded by the comments of NERC and Idaho Power to adopt the four percent target failure rate in performance-based maintenance programs, as described in Attachment A of PRC-005-2. In addition to the rationale provided by NERC, we recognize the practical need to adopt a target failure rate that is available to smaller organizations, and the cost and resources required to develop variable rates for different component types, and thus approve the approach set forth in Attachment A of PRC-005-2. While we do not direct the submission of further data or support for the target failure rate at this time, we note NERC's commitment to continue collecting data on misoperations,80 and expect that NERC will maintain sufficient data bases to allow future evaluation of performance-based maintenance programs as compared to time-based maintenance programs, including the frequency of misoperations (including clearly tracking the underlying cause of the misoperations).

52. Requirement R5 of PRC-005-2 obligates responsible entities to “demonstrate efforts to correct identified Unresolved Maintenance Issues.” NERC defines an “unresolved maintenance issue” as a “deficiency identified during a maintenance activity that causes the component to not meet the intended performance, cannot be corrected during the maintenance interval, and requires follow-up corrective action.” 81 In its Petition, NERC explained the rationale behind providing some latitude to complete correction or restoration of a discovered problem outside of the normal maintenance interval as follows:

81 NERC Petition at 14.

The drafting team does not believe entities should be found in violation of a maintenance program requirement because of the inability to complete a remediation program within the original maintenance interval. The drafting team does believe corrective actions should be timely but concludes it would be impossible to postulate all possible remediation projects and therefore, impossible to specify bounding time frames for resolution of all possible Unresolved Maintenance Issues or what documentation might be sufficient to provide proof that effective corrective action has been initiated. Therefore Requirement R5 requires only the entity demonstrate efforts to correct the Unresolved Maintenance Issues.82

82Id. at 17.

NOPR

53. In the NOPR, the Commission agreed that it may be appropriate in certain circumstances to allow entities additional time beyond the maximum maintenance interval period to complete restorative action, including when the corrective action involves redesign, ordering additional equipment, or timing corrective work to correspond to planned outages.83 However, the Commission noted its expectation that such instances would be limited, and that in most circumstances entities should have the capability to replace components and make minor repairs within the maximum maintenance interval.84

83 NOPR, 144 FERC ¶ 61,055 at P 37.

84Id.

Comments

54. ITC states that it “does not oppose the overall structure” in Requirement R5 for correcting an Unresolved Maintenance Issue, but has concerns about the Commission's “expectation that `entities should have the capability to replace components . . . within the maximum maintenance interval.' ” 85 ITC maintains that this expectation “ignores the challenges of maintaining older, well-functioning protection systems” that are “obsolete by current technology standards and/or for which replacement parts are no longer available.” 86 ITC notes that its own practice is to institute a new capital project to replace obsolete protection systems with new technologies when obsolete protection systems unexpectedly fail or are found to be unacceptable when tested, which could take up to a year or more to complete.

85 ITC Comments at 5.

86Id.

55. By contrast, the Bureau of Reclamation argues that the Requirement R5 obligation to “demonstrate efforts to correct identified Unresolved Maintenance Issues” is unclear, and asks the Commission to direct that NERC clarify the requirement “by including a requirement for entities to develop plans with timeframes for corrective actions.” 87

87 Bureau of Reclamation Comments at 2.

Commission Determination

56. We are not persuaded that any modification to Requirement R5 is needed at this time, or that it is unreasonable to expect, as stated in the NOPR, that in most circumstances responsible entities should not need longer than the maximum maintenance interval to complete corrective actions. While we agree with the Bureau of Reclamation that the adoption of a formal plan for correcting an Unresolved Maintenance Issue may help to demonstrate that an entity has demonstrated sufficient efforts to meet Requirement R5, we note that the adoption of such a plan may not be necessary in all cases, e.g., if the issue will be quickly resolved. Moreover, we can conceive of situations where the adoption of a formal plan for resolution of the issue should not be treated as a sufficient demonstration of effort to correct the issue.

57. With regard to ITC's comment regarding the time involved in certain replacements, particularly when they involve a new capital project, we recognize that in this circumstance (and others), it may appropriately require a significant period of time to address an Unresolved Maintenance Issue. Nonetheless, we do not believe that such a project is inconsistent with our expectation, as stated in the NOPR, that the instances in which restoration or repair is delayed beyond the normal maximum maintenance interval “will be limited and, in most circumstances, entities should have the capability to replace components and make minor repairs within the maximum maintenance interval.” 88

88 NOPR, 144 FERC ¶ 61,055 at P 37.

58. In addition, we note that an Unresolved Maintenance Issue could degrade protection system performance to a level that requires notification and corrective action under Reliability Standard PRC-001-1. Under PRC-001-1, if a protective relay or equipment failure reduces system reliability, the transmission operator or generator operator must notify relevant reliability entities (e.g. the host balancing authority, reliability coordinator, and affected transmission operators and balancing authorities) of the relay or equipment failure and must take corrective action as soon as possible.89

R2.1. If a protective relay or equipment failure reduces system reliability, the Generator Operator shall notify its Transmission Operator and Host Balancing Authority. The Generator Operator shall take corrective action as soon as possible.

R2.2. If a protective relay or equipment failure reduces system reliability, the Transmission Operator shall notify its Reliability Coordinator and affected Transmission Operators and Balancing Authorities. The Transmission Operator shall take corrective action as soon as possible.

59. Under the second sentence of Part 1.1 of Requirement R1, all batteries associated with station DC supply must be included in a time-based maintenance program, i.e., they are not eligible for a performance-based program.90 In assigning violation severity levels for Requirement R1, NERC assigned a “lower” violation severity level for the failure to include applicable station batteries in a time-based maintenance program. NERC also assigned a “lower” violation severity level for the failure to specify whether one Component Type is being addressed by time-based or performance-based maintenance, or a combination of both. NERC explained that “[t]here is an incremental aspect to the violation [of Requirement R1] and the VSLs follow the guidelines for incremental violations.” 91

90 NERC explained this unique treatment of station batteries as follows:

Batteries are the only element of a Protection System that is a perishable item with a shelf life. As a perishable item batteries require not only a constant float charge to maintain their freshness (charge), but periodic inspection to determine if there are problems associated with their aging process and testing to see if they are maintaining a charge or can still deliver their rated output as required. NERC Petition, Ex. D (Technical Justification) at 8.

91 NERC Petition, Ex. I (Discussion of Assignments of VRFs and VSLs) at 10.

NOPR

60. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to direct NERC to change the violation severity level for the failure to include station batteries in a time-based program from a “lower” designation to a “severe” designation, based on the binary nature of the requirement.92 The Commission noted that entities either satisfy the obligation to include station batteries in a time-based program or fail to meet the requirement in its entirety, which is indicative of a binary requirement.93 The Commission also noted that a low violation severity level designation does not properly reflect the number of historical violations associated with station battery maintenance.94

92 NOPR, 144 FERC ¶ 61,055 at P 39.

93Id.; see also id. at n.53 (citing North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 135 FERC ¶ 61,166, at P 13 (2011).

94Id. P 39.

Comments

61. NERC, Idaho Power, and the Cooperatives support NERC's initial “lower” violation severity level designation for the failure to include station batteries in a time-based maintenance program. NERC notes that the purpose of Requirement R1 (as a whole) is “to obligate the entity to establish a Protection System Maintenance Program for its Protection Systems,” and that the subparts of the requirement are “not intended as separate subrequirements for compliance purposes.” 95 NERC further notes that “it was not the intent of the standard drafting team to assign more importance to station batteries than any other Protection system component type as far as the initial establishment of the Protection System Maintenance Program.” 96 NERC explains that the violation severity levels for Requirement R1 were assigned based on the main Requirement, and argues that it is appropriate to measure compliance with that Requirement using “a gradated level of non-compliance based on the number of component types missed. . . .” 97 NERC states that deletion of the failure to include station batteries in a time-based maintenance program as a separately listed violation would be preferable to a directive requiring that failure to be treated as a “severe” level violation.98

95 NERC Comments at 14.

96Id. at 14-15 (emphasis in original).

97Id. at 15.

98Id.

62. NERC also disagrees with the Commission's statement that an assignment of a “lower” violation severity level in this context is inconsistent with the Commission's approach to binary requirements. NERC asserts that neither it nor the standard drafting team considered Requirement R1 to be binary, and NERC points out that the Commission has adopted the general rule that “gradated Violation Severity Levels, where possible, would be preferable to binary Violations Severity Levels since the application of any penalty for a violation could be more consistently and fairly applied commensurate with the degree of the violation.” 99

63. The Cooperatives and Idaho Power agree that a “lower” violation severity level is appropriate in this context.100 The Cooperatives assert that a “severe” designation does not reflect the level of risk associated with the failure to test a given battery, and that the number of historical violations associated with station battery maintenance merely reflects NERC's zero-tolerance policy for missing a defined testing interval by even one day.101 The Cooperatives agree with NERC that Requirement R1.1 is not binary,102 and Idaho Power maintains that NERC's proposed assignment properly takes into account “the incremental aspect to potential violations.” 103

100 Cooperatives Comments at 9-10; Idaho Power Comments at 2.

101 Cooperatives Comments at 9.

102Id.

103 Idaho Power Comments at 2.

64. ITC supports the NOPR proposal to direct NERC to modify the violation severity level for Part 1.1 of Requirement R1, and agrees that the requirement is essentially binary with respect to compliance.104

104 ITC Comments at 4-5.

Commission Determination

65. We are not persuaded that the failure to include station batteries in a time-based maintenance program should be assigned a “lower” violation severity level, when these components were singled out for special treatment in Requirement R1 as proposed. Furthermore, NERC does not propose gradated violation severity levels relating to whether a responsible entity includes station batteries in a time-based maintenance program. Nor does NERC explain how it would develop such gradated violation severity levels. NERC instead proposes a single, “lower” violation severity level assignment as to this requirement. NERC treats the requirement as binary, while proposing gradated violation severity levels for all other portions of Requirement R1.105 In this situation, the violation severity level must be “severe,” as NERC has previously stated.106 However, NERC is free to develop and propose gradated violation severity level assignments for its time-based maintenance program requirement as to station batteries.

105 NERC refers to a Commission statement that BAL-005-0, Requirement R12, which requires an applicable entity to include all tie line flows in a calculation, is not a binary requirement and can be gradated. NERC Comments at 15-16 (citing North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 123 FERC ¶ 61,284, at P 26 (2008)). An applicable entity's failure to include any tie line flows in the calculation would represent the most serious excursion from compliance with this requirement and be appropriate for a “severe” violation severity level assignment. As to the requirement that a responsible entity include all batteries associated with DC station supply in a time-based maintenance program, the single instance of violation NERC identifies in its violation severity levels for PRC-005-2 Requirement R1 is a failure to include any such batteries in a time-based maintenance program. Even if this requirement can be gradated for the purpose of assigning violation severity levels, the violation NERC identifies likewise would be the most serious excursion from compliance, so that a severe violation severity level assignment would be appropriate.

106 “NERC further states that it will determine whether a requirement has a single violation severity requirement or a set of violation severity levels by analyzing the performance required to satisfy a particular requirement. . . . Requirements that are binary, i.e., pass/fail, will have only one violation severity level—severe.” North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 135 FERC ¶ 61,166, at P 13 (2011).

66. We also note that the level of risk associated with the failure to test a given battery is not an appropriate consideration in the context of assigning violation severity levels, but rather, should be considered when assigning a violation risk factor. In this case, Requirement R1 has been assigned a medium violation risk factor, which we accept as properly reflecting NERC's determination that a violation of Requirement R1 could directly affect the electrical state or the capability of the bulk-power system, but is unlikely to lead to bulk power system instability, separation, or cascading failures.107 We accordingly direct NERC to submit a compliance filing changing the violation severity level for the failure to include station batteries in a time-based maintenance program to “severe.” 108

107 NERC Petition, Ex. I (Discussion of Assignments of VRFs and VSLs) at 5-6.

108 We disagree with NERC's suggestion to delete this VSL assignment rather than direct a change in it because “the compliance element is covered adequately by the remaining language in the `lower' VSL” for Requirement R1. NERC Comments at 15. Under NERC's suggestion, a responsible entity that specifies that it is using a performance-based maintenance program for station batteries would be in compliance with the first sentence of Requirement R1.1, but in violation of the second sentence, without an applicable violation severity level.

F. Definitions NERC Petition

67. NERC sought approval of six new definitions as part of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-005-2, i.e., Component, Component Type, Countable Event, Protection System Maintenance Program, Segment, and Unresolved Maintenance Issue. Of these newly defined terms, NERC proposed to include only the term Protection System Maintenance Program in its Glossary of Terms, with the remainder applying only to Reliability Standard PRC-005-2.

NOPR

68. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve all six definitions without modification.

Comments

69. The Bureau of Reclamation asks the Commission to direct NERC to clarify section 4.2 (Applicability) to eliminate use of the vague or confusing terms “such as,” “including,” and “etc.,” including eliminating their use in the definition of the term “Element” (as referenced in PRC-005-2) and in the standard-specific definition of “Component.” 109 In addition, the Bureau of Reclamation suggests that the Commission require all definitions included in standards to be included in the NERC Glossary as a general matter, “to promote consistency among standards.” 110

109 Bureau of Reclamation Comments at 2.

110Id. at 1-2.

Commission Determination

70. We are not persuaded that the use of the terms and phrases highlighted by the Bureau of Reclamation, which allow for the use of an illustrative list of elements or facilities that are included within a definition, renders that definition or the standard's applicability impermissibly vague. Nor are we persuaded that the definitions at issue in this docket that are used in the context of this standard must be adopted in NERC's Glossary of Terms for potential application to all standards.111 However, we note that NERC should not adopt inconsistent definitions for the same term. We therefore accept the six definitions associated with PRC-005-2 as proposed by NERC without modification.

111 This appears to be a unique situation in that the five defined terms at issue have been developed specifically for use with PRC-005-2 and do not have broader applicability. However, we note that our approval of the defined terms as part of PRC-005-2 makes them binding on the ERO, regional entities, and registered entities for purposes of PRC-005-2, regardless of whether the terms appear in NERC's Glossary of Terms or as part of the individual standard. See, e.g., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Monitoring System Conditions—Transmission Operations Reliability Standard, Transmission Operations Reliability Standards, Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability, 145 FERC ¶ 61,158, at P 66, n.81 (2013) (“The Commission has held that definitions are standards.”).

III. Information Collection Statement

71. The following collection of information contained in this Final Rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.112 OMB's regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.113 Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number.

73. Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 includes specific requirements about the minimum maintenance activities required for each type of applicable component, as well as a maximum time interval during which the maintenance must be completed. Because the specific requirements were designed to reflect common industry practice, entities are generally not expected to experience a meaningful change in actual maintenance and documentation practices. However, applicable entities will have to perform a one-time review of their current protection system maintenance programs to ensure that they meet the requirements of the revised standard PRC-005-2. Accordingly, all expected information collection costs are expected to be limited to the first year of implementation of the revised standard.

74. Public Reporting Burden: Our estimate below regarding the number of respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of June 10, 2013. According to the compliance registry, 544 entities are registered as distribution providers, 898 entities are registered as generation owners, and 346 entities are registered as transmission owners within the United States. However, due to significant overlap, the total number of these affected entities (i.e., entities registered as a distribution provider, a generation owner, a transmission owner, or some combination of these three functional entities) is 867 entities.

75. Affected entities must perform a one-time review of their existing protection system maintenance program to ensure that it contains at a minimum the activities listed in Tables 1 through 3 in Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 and that the activities are performed within the applicable maximum interval listed in Tables 1 through 3. If the existing protection system maintenance program does not meet the criteria in Reliability Standard PRC-005-2, the entity will have to make certain adjustments to the program.

RequirementNumber

of affected

entities

Number

of PSMP

reviewed

per entity

Average

number

of hours per

review

Total burden

hours

Total cost (1)(2)(3)(1)*(2)*(3) = (4)(4)*$70 114One time review and adjustment of existing protection system maintenance program867186,936$485,520114 This figure is the average of the salary plus benefits for a manager and an engineer. The figures are taken from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics at (http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm).

Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Frequency of Responses: One time.

Necessity of the Information: The Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 implements the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to better ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power System. Specifically, the new Reliability Standard ensures that transmission and generation protection systems affecting the reliability of the bulk electric system are maintained and tested.

76. Internal review: The Commission has reviewed revised Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 and made a determination that approval of this standard is necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements.

78. Comments concerning the information collections in this rule and the associated burden estimates should be sent to the Commission and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be sent by email to: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference Docket No. RM13-7-000 (FERC-725P) in your submission.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

79. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 115 generally requires a description and analysis of rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed above, Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 will apply to an estimated 867 individual entities (the number of entities registered as a distribution provider, a generator owner, a transmission owner, or any combination of those three functional entities). Comparison of the NERC Compliance Registry with data submitted to the Energy Information Administration on Form EIA-861 indicates that, of these entities, 230 may qualify as small entities.116 Of the 230 small entities, 90 are registered as a combination of distribution providers, generator owners and transmission owners, but it is assumed that each entity would have only one comprehensive program to review.

115 5 U.S.C. 601-12.

116 The RFA definition of “small entity” refers to the definition provided in the Small Business Act (SBA), which defines a “small business concern” as a business that is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. See 15 U.S.C. 632 (2006). According to the Small Business Administration, an electric utility is defined as “small” if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours.

80. The Commission estimates that, on average, each of the 230 small entities affected will have a one-time cost of $560, representing a one-time review of the program for each entity, consisting of 8 man-hours at $70/hour as explained above in the information collection statement. We do not consider this cost to be a significant economic impact for small entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

V. Environmental Analysis

81. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.117 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended.118 The actions taken herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.

82. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

83. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

84. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

85. This Final Rule is effective February 24, 2014.

86. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.119 The Commission will submit the Final Rule to both houses of Congress and to the General Accountability Office.

The Department of Justice (the Department or DOJ) published a final rule in the Federal Register on November 21, 2013, which added a new section to the Department's Privacy Act exemption regulations to exempt two OCDETF systems of records from certain subsections of the Privacy Act. The final text of the rule incorrectly referred to exempted “subsections” of the Privacy Act as “paragraphs” of the new section. This document corrects the final rule by revising the new section.

The final rule published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2013 (78 FR 69753), added § 16.135 as a new section to the Department's Privacy Act exemption regulations to exempt two OCDETF systems of records from certain subsections of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). The final text of rule § 16.135(c) incorrectly referred to exempted “subsections” of the Privacy Act as “paragraphs” of § 16.135. This document corrects the final rule by revising § 16.135(c).

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order 2940-2008, 28 CFR part 16 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

PART 16—PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR INFORMATION1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(c) Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:

(1) From subsection (c)(3) because to provide the subject with an accounting of disclosures of records in these systems could inform that individual of the existence, nature, or scope of an actual or potential law enforcement or counterintelligence investigation by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Fusion Center, the International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center, or the recipient agency, and could permit that individual to take measures to avoid detection or apprehension, to learn of the identity of witnesses and informants, or to destroy evidence, and would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement or counterintelligence efforts. In addition, disclosure of the accounting would amount to notice to the individual of the existence of a record. Moreover, release of an accounting may reveal information that is properly classified pursuant to Executive Order.

(2) From subsection (c)(4) because this subsection is inapplicable to the extent that an exemption is being claimed for subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4).

(3) From subsection (d)(1) because disclosure of records in the system could alert the subject of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation of the existence of that investigation, of the nature and scope of the information and evidence obtained as to his or her activities, of the identity of confidential witnesses and informants, of the investigative interest of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Fusion Center, the International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center, and other intelligence or law enforcement agencies (including those responsible for civil proceedings related to laws against drug trafficking or related financial crimes or international organized crime); could lead to the destruction of evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, fabrication of testimony, and/or flight of the subject; could reveal the details of a sensitive investigative or intelligence technique, or the identity of a confidential source; or could otherwise impede, compromise, or interfere with investigative efforts and other related law enforcement and/or intelligence activities. In addition, disclosure could invade the privacy of third parties and/or endanger the life, health, and physical safety of law enforcement personnel, confidential informants, witnesses, and potential crime victims. Access to records could also result in the release of information properly classified pursuant to Executive Order.

(4) From subsection (d)(2) because amendment of the records thought to be inaccurate, irrelevant, incomplete, or untimely would also interfere with ongoing investigations, criminal or civil law enforcement proceedings, and other law enforcement activities; would impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations, analyses, and reports to be continuously reinvestigated and revised; and may impact information properly classified pursuant to Executive Order.

(5) From subsections (d)(3) and (4) because these subsections are inapplicable to the extent that exemption is claimed from subsections (d)(1) and (2) and for the reasons stated in § 16.135(c)(3) and (c)(4).

(6) From subsection (e)(1) because, in the course of their acquisition, collation, and analysis of information under the statutory authority granted, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Fusion Center, and the International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center will occasionally obtain information, including information properly classified pursuant to Executive Order, that concerns actual or potential violations of law that are not strictly within their statutory or other authority or may compile and maintain information which may not be relevant to a specific investigation or prosecution. This is because it is impossible to determine in advance what information collected during an investigation or in support of these mission activities will be important or crucial to an investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary to retain such information in these systems of records because it can aid in establishing patterns of criminal activity of a suspect and can provide valuable leads for federal and other law enforcement agencies. This consideration applies equally to information acquired from, or collated or analyzed for, both law enforcement agencies and agencies of the U.S. foreign intelligence community and military community.

(7) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal, civil, or regulatory investigation, prosecution, or proceeding, the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent practicable from the subject individual would present a serious impediment to law enforcement because the subject of the investigation, prosecution, or proceeding would be placed on notice as to the existence and nature of the investigation, prosecution, or proceeding and would therefore be able to avoid detection or apprehension, to influence witnesses improperly, to destroy evidence, or to fabricate testimony. Moreover, thorough and effective investigation and prosecution may require seeking information from a number of different sources.

(8) From subsection (e)(3) because to comply with the requirements of this subsection during the course of an investigation could impede the information-gathering process, thus hampering the investigation or intelligence gathering. Disclosure to an individual of investigative interest would put the subject on notice of that fact and allow the subject an opportunity to engage in conduct intended to impede that activity or avoid apprehension. Disclosure to other individuals would likewise put them on notice of what might still be a sensitive law enforcement interest and could result in the further intentional or accidental disclosure to the subject or other inappropriate recipients, convey information that might constitute unwarranted invasions of the personal privacy of other persons, unnecessarily burden law enforcement personnel in information-collection activities, and chill the willingness of witnesses to cooperate.

(9) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) because this system is exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d).

(10) From subsection (e)(4)(I) to the extent that this subsection could be interpreted to require more detail regarding system record sources than has been published in the Federal Register. Should this subsection be so interpreted, exemption from this provision is necessary to protect the sources of law enforcement and intelligence information and to protect the privacy and safety of witnesses and informants and other information sources. Further, greater specificity could compromise other sensitive law enforcement information, techniques, and processes.

The Coast Guard is revising its regulations to implement section 301 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. This Act authorized the Commandant to waive the statutory requirement to mark sunken vessels with a light at night if the Commandant determines that placing a light would be impractical and waiving the requirement would not create an undue hazard to navigation. The Commandant has delegated to the Coast Guard District Commander in whose district the sunken vessel is located the authority to grant this waiver.

DATES:

This final rule is effective January 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket number USCG-2012-0054 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket online by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the instructions on that Web site.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Patrick N. Armstrong, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1561, email Patrick.N.Armstrong@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on May 28, 2013 (78 FR 31872). We note that the NPRM was published with an incorrect Regulatory Identification Number of 1625-AA97, and so we published a correcting notice on September 10, 2013 (78 FR 55230). We received no comments on the proposed rule, no public meeting was requested, and none was held.

III. Background

The Coast Guard is revising its regulations in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 64, which prescribe rules relating to the marking of structures, sunken vessels, and other obstructions for the protection of maritime navigation. These regulations apply to all sunken vessels in the navigable waters or waters above the continental shelf of the United States. The current regulations in 33 CFR 64 require an owner of a vessel, raft, or other craft that is wrecked and sunk in a navigable channel to immediately mark it with a buoy or a beacon during the day and a light at night, and maintain the markings until the wreck is removed. The current wording uses the phrase “buoy or daymark,” which we are replacing with “buoy or beacon” in this part. This is a more precise phrase encompassing floating and fixed aids to navigation. There are no provisions for exemptions to this regulation. However, the Commandant is authorized by statute to grant a waiver from the lighting requirement if the Coast Guard determines, due to conditions of the waterway, that marking the sunken vessel with a light is impracticable and that not marking the sunken vessel does not pose an undue hazard to navigation. Such a waiver could save owners the cost of marking sunken vessels with a light without jeopardizing navigational safety.

The potential for saving owners money where there is little risk to navigation safety is the primary purpose of this rule. This final rule adds to the regulations a provision in section 301 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (“the Act”) (Pub. L. 108-293), codified at 33 U.S.C. 409, that authorizes the Commandant to waive the requirement to mark a sunken vessel, raft, or other craft with a light at night if the Commandant determines it would be “impracticable and granting such a waiver would not create an undue hazard to navigation.” The Commandant has delegated to the District Commander the authority to grant this waiver. (See Aids to Navigation Manual—Administration (COMDTINST M16500.7A)).

In addition, the Coast Guard is making the editorial and organizational changes to 33 CFR part 64 subpart B addressed in the NPRM to make the regulations clearer to the regulated industry.

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes

Because the Coast Guard received no comments on the proposed rule, we are publishing this final rule with no changes from the May 28, 2013 NPRM.

V. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under E.O. 12866. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule to ascertain its probable impacts on industry.

The Coast Guard did not receive any comments related to the proposed rule or regulatory assessment during the public comment period. We received no additional information or data that would alter our assessments in the NPRM. Therefore, we are adopting the regulatory assessment for the NPRM as final. The following summarizes the costs and benefits as presented in the NPRM regulatory assessment:

Summary of Costs and BenefitsCategoryProposed ruleApplicabilityOwner/operator of a vessel sunk in navigable channels that request a waiver from the requirement to provide a lighted marker if providing an unlighted marker does not create a hazard to navigation.Affected population6 sunken vessels per year.Industry annualized costs (7% discount rate)$217 per year.Government annualized costs (7% discount rate)$1,140 per year.Total annualized cost of the rule (7% discount)$1,357 per year.BenefitsCost savings due to waiver of requirement that the marker have a light.Improved clarity and readability for existing information requirements.

The Coast Guard is revising its regulations requiring the owner of a sunken vessel to mark the vessel with a light at night. Existing regulations require an owner of a vessel, raft, or other craft that is wrecked and sunk in a navigable channel to immediately mark it with a buoy or a beacon during the day and with a light at night, and maintain the markings until the sunken vessel is removed.

The revision to the regulations codifies a provision in the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 that authorizes the Commandant of the Coast Guard, under certain circumstances, to waive the requirement to mark sunken vessels with a light at night. This new regulatory language permits a waiver to be granted if the District Commander determines the placement of a light would be impractical and granting a waiver will not create an undue hazard to navigation. This final rule also makes certain edits in order to improve readability and clarify existing information requirements.

Costs associated with the rule result from vessel owners/operators requesting waivers from marking a sunken vessel. We estimate that six vessel owners and/or operators per year would request waivers from a District Commander. It is estimated that it would take an owner or operator approximately 15 minutes to report the incident to the Coast Guard, via voice communication, and informally request a waiver for their marker. The loaded hourly wage rate of a Captain, Mate, and Pilot of a Water Vessel (NAICS 53-5021) is $48.30.1 Therefore, the estimated cost of the initial reporting, per incident, is $12.07 = ($48.30 × .25). We also estimate that it would take approximately 30 minutes, per waiver, to write up and submit a formal request to the District Commander. Therefore, the cost of submitting a request is $24.15 = ($48.30 × .5), and the total cost for each occurrence is $36.22 = ($12.07 + $24.15). The total 10-year cost of six affected vessels is $1,526 discounted at 7 percent and an annualized cost of $217.32 discounted at 7 percent.

1 See the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Web site at http://www.bls.gov/oes/2011/may/oes535021.htm, Mean hourly wage for Captains, Mates and Pilots of Water Vessels. In addition, the cost reported in the analysis is based on the loaded wage rate, which is the reported BLS wage rate multiplied by the load rate of 1.4.

The Federal Government will also incur costs to review and grant waivers. We anticipate a Coast Guard Commander (O-5) will review the waiver request and make the determination of whether to grant it. As previously stated, it is projected that six waiver requests per year would be submitted for review. We estimate that each waiver review would take approximately 2 hours. Therefore, the Government's economic burden of reviewing a written waiver request is $190 ($95.00 at an O-5 wage rate 2 × 2 hours) per waiver, and an estimated annual burden of $1,140 per year ($190 per waiver × 6 waivers). The total Government 10-year cost is $8,007, and the annualized cost is $1,140, both discounted at 7 percent. The total 10-year (industry and government) cost of this rule is estimated at $13,573.20 (undiscounted) and $9,533.25 discounted at 7 percent.

2 Wage rate for an O-5 comes from COMDTINST 7310.1M. Feb 2011.

The primary benefit of this final rule is that it provides a regulatory efficiency benefit. Currently, ship operators may not be aware that waivers from the lighting requirement may be requested. By establishing a waiver provision as part of the Coast Guard regulations, we anticipate a wider audience would have knowledge about petitioning the Coast Guard for a waiver. Additionally, we believe that the clarifications to the regulations could improve the efficiency of data collection of sunken vessels by explaining the information required (such as specifying that vessel type and size should be included in the description of a sunken vessel).

B. Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of fewer than 50,000 people. The Coast Guard received no comments related to its discussion and analysis of impacts on small entities during the public comment period. We received no additional information or data that would alter our discussion and analysis in the NPRM.

The Coast Guard expects that this rule could impact a maximum of six small entities per year at a cost of $36 per waiver per entity, which we assume would have a cost impact of less than 1 percent of annual revenue per affected entity.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

As noted previously, we estimate that there would be fewer than 10 respondents affected in any given year. Therefore, this rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), since the estimated number of respondents is less than the threshold of 10 respondents per 12-month period for collection of information reporting purposes under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

E. Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”) if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that E.O. and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. This rule would merely permit owners and operators of vessels sunk in navigable channels to request a waiver from the existing Coast Guard requirement to mark the sunken vessel with a light at night.

It is well-settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well-settled that the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within fields foreclosed from regulation by the States or local governments. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000)). The Coast Guard believes the Federalism principles articulated in Locke apply to this rule since it would only affect an area regulated exclusively by the Coast Guard.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

This rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (“Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights”).

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045 (“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”). This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

L. Technical Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions, which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), (b) and (i) of the Instruction. This rule involves regulations which are editorial, regulations delegating authority and regulations in aid of vessel traffic services, and marking of navigation systems. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 64

Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 64 as follows:

PART 64—MARKING OF STRUCTURES, SUNKEN VESSELS AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(a) The owner and/or operator of a vessel, raft, or other craft wrecked and sunk in a navigable channel must mark it immediately with a buoy or beacon during the day and with a light at night. The requirement to mark the vessel, raft, or other craft with a light at night may be waived by the District Commander pursuant to § 64.13 of this subpart.

(b) The owner and/or operator of a sunken vessel, raft, or other craft that constitutes a hazard to navigation must mark it in accordance with this subchapter.

(c) The owner and/or operator of a sunken vessel, raft, or other craft must promptly report to the District Commander, in whose jurisdiction the vessel, raft, or other craft is located, the action they are taking to mark it. In addition to the information required by 46 CFR 4.05, the reported information must contain—

(1) Name and description of the sunken vessel, raft, or other craft, including type and size;

(2) Accurate description of the location of the sunken vessel, raft, or other craft, including how the position was determined;

(3) Water depth; and

(4) Location and type of marking established, including color and shape of buoy or other beacon and characteristic of the light, if fitted.

(d) The owner and/or operator of a vessel, raft, or other craft wrecked and sunk in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or sunk on the high seas, if the owner is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, must promptly report to the District Commander, in whose jurisdiction the obstruction is located, the action they are taking to mark it in accordance with this subchapter. The reported information must contain the information listed in paragraph (c) of this section, including the information required by 46 CFR 4.05.

(e) Owners and/or operators of other obstructions may report the existence of such obstructions and mark them in the same manner as prescribed for sunken vessels.

(f) Owners and/or operators of marine pipelines that are determined to be hazards to navigation must report and mark the hazardous portion of those pipelines in accordance with 49 CFR parts 192 or 195, as applicable.

(g) All markings of sunken vessels, rafts, or crafts and other obstructions established in accordance with this section must be reported to and approved by the appropriate District Commander.

(h) Should the District Commander determine that these markings are inconsistent with part 62 of this subchapter, the markings must be replaced as soon as practicable with approved markings.

(a) Owners and/or operators of sunken vessels, rafts or other craft sunk in navigable waters may apply to the District Commander, in whose jurisdiction the vessel, raft, or other craft is located, for a waiver of the requirement to mark them with a light at night as required under § 64.11(a) of this subpart. Information on how to contact the District Commander is available at http://www.uscg.mil/top/units.

(b) The District Commander may grant a waiver if it is determined that—

(1) Marking the wrecked vessel, raft or other craft with a light at night would be impractical, and

(2) The granting of such a waiver would not create an undue hazard to navigation.

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the operation of the S.R. 74 Bridge, at mile 283.1, over the AICW, at Wrightsville Beach, NC. The deviation is necessary to facilitate bearing replacement to the bridge. This temporary deviation allows one span of the double leaf bascule drawbridge to remain in the closed to navigation position at a time.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on January 8, 2014 to 11 p.m. January 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-1020] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation, the owner and operator of this bascule bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.821(a)(6), to facilitate bearing replacement to the bridge.

Under the current operating schedule, the draw for the S.R. 74 Bridge, at mile 283.1 over the AICW, at Wrightsville Beach, NC shall open on the hour between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. need not open except with a two hour advance notice.

Under this temporary deviation, one span of the drawbridge will be maintained in the closed to navigation position at a time, beginning at 7 a.m., on Wednesday, January 8, 2014 until and including to 11 p.m., on Wednesday January 29, 2014. The bridge will operate under its current operating schedule at all other times. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users.

Due to scaffolding hanging below the bridge the S.R. 74 Bridge has a temporary vertical clearance in the closed position of 18 feet above mean high water for ongoing maintenance. Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime and are advised to proceed with caution. Or, if they can pass through a single span opening, they may request such under the current operating schedule. There is no immediate alternate route for vessels transiting this section of the AICW that cannot pass a single span opening. The Coast Guard will also inform additional waterway users through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure periods for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the bascule span of the Route 71 Bridge across Shark River (South Channel), mile 0.8, at Belmar, NJ. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the replacement of motor seals and instrumentation on the drawbridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed to navigation position during the rehabilitation project.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 7 p.m. on Monday, January 6, 2014 until 5 a.m. on Friday, January 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation [USCG-2013-1023] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Terrance Knowles, Environmental Protection Specialist, Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6587, email Terrance.A.Knowles@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, at 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), the owner and operator of this bascule drawbridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to help facilitate the replacement of motor seals and instrumentation on the bridge. The Route 71 Bridge across Shark River (South Channel), mile 0.8, at Belmar, NJ, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 13 feet above mean high water (MHW).

Under the current operating schedule set out in 33 CFR 117.5 and 117.751(b), the draw must open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request or signal to open is given, from October 1 through May 14 of any year. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be closed-to-navigation for the rehabilitation, which will restrict the operation of the draw span from 7 p.m., on January 6, 2014 through 5 a.m., January 10, 2014 and from 7 p.m., on January 13, 2014 through 5 a.m., January 17, 2014. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no alternate route for vessels to pass this section of Shark River.

The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. Waterway traffic consists of recreational boats, tugs, and barges.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all waters of the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker 94.1 to mile marker 95.1 above head of passes (AHP). This safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display in the Lower Mississippi River at mile marker 94.6 AHP. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port New Orleans or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 11:55 p.m. on December 31, 2013 to 12:15 a.m. on January 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Documents indicated in this preamble are parts of docket [USCG-2013-0989] and are available online at www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary rule, call Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Brandon Sullivan, Sector New Orleans, at (504) 365-2281 or Brandon.J.Sullivan@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Table of AcronymsAHP Above Head of PassesCOTP Captain of the PortDHS Department of Homeland SecurityFR Federal RegisterMM Mile MarkerNPRM Notice of Proposed RulemakingA. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and unnecessary. This safety zone is needed to protect vessels and mariners from the safety hazards associated with an aerial fireworks display taking place over the waterway. Providing notice and comment for this rule establishing the necessary safety zone would be impracticable as it would delay the safety measure necessary to protect life and property from the possible hazards associated with the display. Delay would also unnecessarily interfere with the planned fireworks display. The impacts on navigation are expected to be minimal as the safety zone will only impact navigation for a short duration.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Waiting a full 30 days after publication in the Federal Register is contrary to the public interest as that would delay the effectiveness of the safety zone until after the planned fireworks event. Immediate action is needed to protect vessels and mariners from the safety hazards associated with an aerial fireworks display that will last for only a short duration. The Coast Guard will notify the public and maritime community that the safety zone will be in effect and of its enforcement periods via broadcast notices to mariners.

B. Basis and Purpose

J&M Displays is sponsoring a fireworks display from a barge located at MM 94.6 AHP on the Lower Mississippi River. This event will take place from 11:55 p.m. on December 31, 2013 to 12:15 a.m. on January 1, 2014. The Coast Guard has determined that a safety zone is needed to protect the public, mariners, and vessels from the hazards associated with these aerial fireworks displays over the waterway.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Lower Mississippi River from 11:55 p.m. on December 31, 2013 to 12:15 a.m. on January 1, 2014. The safety zone will include the entire width of the Lower Mississippi River in New Orleans, LA, from MM 94.1 to MM 95.1 AHP. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless permission has been granted by the Captain of the Port New Orleans, or a designated representative.

The Captain of the Port New Orleans will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the planned schedule. Mariners and other members of the public may also contact Coast Guard Sector New Orleans Command Center to inquire about the status of the safety zone, at (504) 365-2200.

D. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This safety zone will restrict navigation on the Lower Mississippi River from MM 94.1 to MM 95.1 AHP, for approximately 20 minutes from December 31, 2013 to January 1, 2014. Due to the short duration of the event, the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the safety zone will only be subject to enforcement for approximately 20 minutes from December 31, 2013 to January 1, 2014. Before the activation of the zone, COTP New Orleans will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river and will make notifications to the public through marine band radio when the safety zone is being enforced. Additionally, deviation from this rule may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case basis by COTP New Orleans or a COTP New Orleans designated representative.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INTFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone for all waters of the Lower Mississippi River from MM 94.1 to MM 95.1 AHP. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

(a) Location. The following areas are safety zones: All waters of the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker 94.1 to mile marker 95.1 above head of passes, New Orleans, LA.

(b) Effective Date. This rule is effective from 11:55 p.m. on December 31, 2013 to 12:15 a.m. on January 1, 2014.

(c) Periods of Enforcement. The safety zone for MM 94.1 to MM 95.1 AHP will be enforced from 11:55 p.m. on December 31, 2013 to 12:15 a.m. on January 1, 2014. The Captain of the Port (COTP) New Orleans or a COTP New Orleans designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the planned schedule.

(d) Regulations.

(1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port New Orleans or designated personnel. Designated personnel include commissioned, warrant and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans.

(2) The safety zone is closed to all persons and vessels, except as may be permitted by the COTP New Orleans or a COTP New Orleans designated representative.

(3) Vessels requiring deviation from this rule must request permission from the COTP New Orleans or a COTP New Orleans designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67, or through Coast Guard Sector New Orleans at 504-365-2200.

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone for Gulfport Lake, Gulfport, MS. This action is necessary for the protection of persons and vessels on navigable waters during the launching of barges in Gulfport Lake, Gulfport, MS, particularly small craft in the area that risk being swamped. Entry into, transiting or anchoring in the zone during the launching of barges is prohibited for all vessels, mariners, and persons unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Mobile or a designated representative. The Coast Guard also requests comments on this interim rule before establishing a final rule.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from December 24, 2013 through December 31, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from November 8, 2013, until December 24, 2013.

Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket Number USCG-2013-0837. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2013-0837, using any one of the following methods:

See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

Table of AcronymsCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCOTP Captain of the PortDHS Department of Homeland SecurityNPRM Notice of Proposed RulemakingA. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number (USCG-2013-0837) for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2013-0837) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2013-0837) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

3. Privacy Act

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

Through this interim rule, the Coast Guard is establishing a recurring safety zone for the protection of mariners and vessels during monthly barge launching operations on Gulfport Lake, Gulfport, MS. The Coast Guard has previously established six (6) individual safety zones as temporary final rules for the launching of barges in Gulfport Lake, Gulfport, MS during 2013. These individual safety zones were issued as temporary final rules that were enforced with actual notice and are accessible in the docket as explained above under ADDRESSES. These temporary safety zones have enabled the Coast Guard to maintain safe navigation for all in the area during the barge launches without issue. Rather than continuing to establish individual safety zones on a monthly basis, the Coast Guard is establishing one recurring safety zone through this interim rule to be in effect approximately one day each month during the barge launching operations. Once established, the specific dates and times for launches will be noticed each month through broadcast notices to mariners providing at least 24 hours notice of when the safety zone will be enforced. The requirements of this interim rule are the same as those in the temporary rules available in the docket.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. This interim rule establishes a recurring safety zone to replace the temporary safety zones occurring monthly and the safety zone requirements are and have been noticed to vessels and mariners transiting the regulated area. Delaying the effective date to provide a full 30 days' notice is unnecessary and would be contrary to public interest by delaying the safety measures needed to protect persons and vessels from safety hazards associated with launching the barges. Additionally, delaying the safety zone would unnecessarily interfere with launching the barges and possible commercial and contractual obligations.

C. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory safety zones. Trinity Offshore, LLC is a ship yard and repair facility located on Gulfport Lake in Gulfport, MS. Trinity Offshore, LLC provided the Coast Guard with a schedule of barge launches, indicating one barge launch a month over the course of the next three years. The launching of barges from this facility creates a 3 to 6 foot launch wave that will propagate southward across Gulfport Lake. This wave poses significant safety hazards to vessels, particularly small craft in the area that could potentially be swamped. The COTP Mobile is establishing a safety zone for Gulfport Lake, Gulfport, MS, to protect persons and vessels during the launching of barges. The COTP anticipates minimal impact on vessel traffic due to this regulation. However, this safety zone is deemed necessary for the protection of life and property within the COTP Mobile zone.

D. Discussion of the Interim Rule

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone for Gulfport Lake, to include all waters between an eastern boundary represented by positions 30° 25′ 37.2″ N, 089° 03′ 09.7″ W to 30° 25′ 27.0″ N, 089° 03′ 09.7″ W and a western boundary represented by positions 30° 25′ 35.4″ N, 089° 03′ 45.7″ W to 30° 25′ 28.8″ N, 089° 03′ 45.7″ W. This rule will protect the safety of life and property in this area. Entry into, transiting or anchoring in this zone during the launching of barges will be prohibited to all vessels, mariners, and persons unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Mobile or a designated representative. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at 251-441-5976.

The COTP Mobile or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notice to mariners of enforcement periods for the safety zone. This rule will only be enforced during the launching of barges occurring once a month.

E. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

The safety zone listed in this rule will only restrict vessel traffic from entering, transiting or anchoring in Gulfport Lake, Gulfport, MS during the launching of barges. The effect of this regulation will not be significant for several reasons: (1) This rule will only affect vessel traffic for a short duration; (2) vessels may request permission from the COTP to transit through the safety zone; and (3) impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal. Notifications to the marine community will be made through broadcast notice to mariners. These notifications will allow the public to plan operations around the affected area.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in Gulfport Lake during the launching of barges. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The zone is limited in size, is of short duration and vessel traffic may request permission from the COTP Mobile or a designated representative to enter or transit through the zone.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

This rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

This rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone on a waterway during the launching of barges and is not expected to result in any significant adverse environmental impact as described in NEPA. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. Environmental analysis checklists supporting this determination and Categorical Exclusion Determinations are available for each of the preceding individual safety zones and will be done for this recurring safety zone and made available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

(b) Effective period and enforcement dates. This safety zone is effective immediately on December 24, 2013 and enforceable through actual notice beginning November 8, 2013. The COTP Mobile or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notice to mariners of enforcement periods for the safety zone, giving at least 24 hour notice before enforcement begins. Enforcement periods are expected to occur once a month for approximately two (2) hours.

(c) Regulations.

(1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Mobile or a designated representative.

(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Mobile or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channels 16 or by telephone at 251-441-5976.

(3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated representative.

(d) Informational broadcasts. The Captain of the Port or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes that may occur.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the San Diego Bay in support of a fireworks display on the evening of January 28, 2014. The zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on January 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2013-0992]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Giacomo Terrizzi, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone 619-278-7656, email d11marineeventssandiego@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of AcronymsDHS Department of Homeland SecurityFR Federal RegisterNPRM Notice of Proposed RulemakingTFR Temporary Final RuleA. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because an NPRM would be impracticable. The Coast Guard received less than 60 days notice for this event. As such, the Coast Guard did not have time to follow standard notice and comment procedures.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to ensure the public's safety.

B. Basis and Purpose

The Ports and Waterways Safety Act gives the Coast Guard authority to create and enforce safety zones. The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on January 28, 2014 on a portion of the navigable waters of the San Diego Bay for the Allied PRA—Solid Works fireworks display, which will be conducted from a barge located southwest of Embarcadero Park South in San Diego Bay. The safety zone will include all the navigable waters within 600 feet of the nearest point of the barge, which will be located in the following approximate position: 32°42.13′N, 117°10.01′W. The sponsor will provide a tug boat to patrol the safety zone and inform vessels of the safety zone. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, and other vessels and users of the waterway.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on January 28, 2014. The limits of the safety zone will include all the navigable waters within 600 feet of the nearest point of the fireworks barge in approximate position: 32°42.13′N, 117°10.01′W, located southwest of Embarcadero Park South in San Diego Bay.

The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crews, spectators, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The temporary safety zone includes a portion of waters in the San Diego Bay. Before activating the zone, the Coast Guard will notify mariners by appropriate means including but not limited to Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

D. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The safety zone is of a limited duration, no more than 60 minutes, and is limited to a relatively small geographic area at a time when vessel traffic is low. Additionally, before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners and just prior to and during a marine information broadcast.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

(1) This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of the San Diego Bay from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on January 28, 2014.

(2) This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The safety zone will only be in effect for no more than a 60 minute period, late in the evening when vessel traffic is low. Furthermore, vessel traffic can transit safely around the safety zones while the zones are in effect.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

(a) Location. The limits of the safety zone will include all the navigable waters within 600 feet of the nearest point of the fireworks barge in approximate position 32°42.13′N, 117°10.01′W.

(b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on January 28, 2014. If the event concludes prior to the scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

(c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section: designated representative means any commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.

(d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port of San Diego or his designated representative.

(2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.

(3) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, a flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.

(4) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies.

Pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is taking final action to approve state implementation plan (SIP) submissions made by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) intended to meet the state board requirements under section 128 of the CAA. The proposed rule associated with this final action was published on August 19, 2013.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on January 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0988. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly-available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Andy Chang at (312) 886-0258 before visiting the Region 5 office.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?II. What action is EPA taking?III. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsI. What is the background for this action?

Under section 128 of the CAA, each SIP must contain provisions that address two requirements: (i) That any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under this chapter, and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. To comply with this statutory provision, Indiana submitted the following rules for incorporation into the SIP: IC 13-13-8-1, IC 13-13-8-2(a), IC 13-13-8-2(b), IC 13-13-8-3, IC 13-13-8-4, and IC 13-13-8-11. EPA's August 19, 2013, proposed rulemaking (see 78 FR 50360 at 50366) details how these rules satisfy the applicable requirements of section 128. EPA did not receive any comments regarding its proposal to approve Indiana's state board provisions.

II. What action is EPA taking?

For the reasons discussed in our August 19, 2013, proposed rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve IDEM's submissions addressing the state board requirements under section 128 of the CAA. The specific rules that we are approving as satisfying these requirements are IC 13-13-8-1, IC 13-13-8-2(a), IC 13-13-8-2(b),1 IC 13-13-8-3, IC 13-13-8-4, and IC 13-13-8-11. It should be noted that our August 19, 2013, rulemaking contained proposed actions for various additional IDEM submissions, including those addressing the CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) “infrastructure” SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone and 2008 lead national ambient air quality standards, as well as the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality provisions. This final rulemaking, however, is limited only to the state board requirements under section 128 of the CAA.

1 In EPA's August 19, 2013, proposed approval of Indiana's state board provisions, we incorrectly cited this rule as IC 13-18-8-2(b). We want to clarify that this final approval is consistent with Indiana's submission, specifically with respect to IC 13-13-8-2(b).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 24, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

This rule increases the rail equipment accident/incident reporting threshold from $9,900 to $10,500 for certain railroad accidents/incidents involving property damage that occur during calendar year 2014. This action is needed to ensure that FRA's reporting requirements reflect cost increases that have occurred since the reporting threshold was last published in November of 2012.

A “rail equipment accident/incident” is a collision, derailment, fire, explosion, act of God, or other event involving the operation of railroad on-track equipment (standing or moving) that results in damages to railroad on-track equipment, signals, tracks, track structures, or roadbed, including labor costs and the costs for acquiring new equipment and material, greater than the reporting threshold for the year in which the event occurs. 49 CFR 225.19(c). Each rail equipment accident/incident must be reported to FRA using the Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report (Form FRA F 6180.54). 49 CFR 225.19(b), (c) and 225.21(a). Paragraphs (c) and (e) of 49 CFR 225.19 further provide that the dollar figure that constitutes the reporting threshold for rail equipment accidents/incidents will be adjusted, if necessary, every year in accordance with the procedures outlined in appendix B to part 225 (Appendix B) to reflect any cost increases or decreases.

Aside from periodically reviewing and adjusting the annual threshold in accordance with Appendix B, FRA has also periodically amended its method for calculating the threshold. In 49 U.S.C. 20901(b) Congress required that the threshold be based on publicly available information obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), other objective government source, or be subject to notice and comment. In 1996 FRA adopted a new method for calculating the monetary reporting threshold for accidents/incidents. See 61 FR 60632 (Nov. 29, 1996). In 2005, FRA again amended its method for calculating the reporting threshold because the BLS ceased collecting and publishing the railroad wage data used by FRA in the threshold calculation. Consequently, FRA had to substitute railroad employee wage data collected by the Surface Transportation Board for the BLS data that was no longer collected (70 FR 75414 (Dec. 20, 2005)).

In this rule, FRA is merely adjusting the reporting threshold based on the currently published formula in Appendix B. Following the adoption of this 2014 reporting threshold, FRA intends to evaluate and amend, as appropriate, its method for calculating the monetary threshold for accident/incident reporting and, as a result, the formula utilized to calculate the threshold may change. FRA intends to reexamine and amend its method for calculating its reporting threshold because, since 2006, new data sources and methodologies for calculating the threshold have become available and updating the formula to include these advances will ensure it appropriately reflects changes in costs, wages, and inflation.

New Reporting Threshold

Approximately one year has passed since the rail equipment accident/incident reporting threshold was revised. 77 FR 71354 (November 30, 2012). Consequently, FRA has recalculated the threshold, as required by 49 CFR 225.19(c), based on increased costs for labor and increased costs for equipment. FRA has determined that the current reporting threshold of $9,900, which applies to rail equipment accidents/incidents that occur during calendar year 2013, should increase by $600 to $10,500 for equipment accidents/incidents occurring during calendar year 2014, effective January 1, 2014. The specific inputs to the equation set forth in Appendix B (i.e., Tnew = Tprior * [1 + 0.4(Wnew—Wprior)/Wprior + 0.6(Enew—Eprior)/100]) are:

TpriorWnewWpriorEnewEprior$9,900$26.93344$25.56943197.23333191.50000Where: Tnew = New threshold; Tprior = Prior threshold (with reference to the threshold, “prior” refers to the previous threshold rounded to the nearest $100, as reported in the Federal Register); Wnew = New average hourly wage rate, in dollars; Wprior = Prior average hourly wage rate, in dollars; Enew = New equipment average Producer Price Index (PPI) value; Eprior = Prior equipment average PPI value. Using the above figures, the calculated new threshold, (Tnew) is $10,451.83, which is rounded to the nearest $100 for a final new reporting threshold of $10,500.1

1 On June 12, 2013, Union Pacific Railroad Company filed a revised 2nd Quarterly Report of Wage A&B Data (Form A Wage Statistics Summary—0100) for 2012 with the Surface Transportation Board, following the publication of the 2013 threshold. Based upon the revised data, the 2013 threshold would have been $10,000 (Tnew = 9500*(1+0.4*(26.10-24.93)/24.93+0.6*(191.5-186.37)/100.00) = 9970.76) . The current method for calculating the current threshold requires using the prior threshold as published in the Federal Register. Even though the corrected threshold for 2013 would have been higher at $10,000, leading to a higher Tprior in the calculation for 2014, the end result for 2014 is still $10,500 using the current formula.

Notice and Comment Procedures

In this rule, FRA has recalculated the monetary reporting threshold based on the formula discussed in detail and adopted, after notice and comment, in the final rule published December 20, 2005, 70 FR 75414. FRA has found that both the current cost data inserted into this pre-existing formula and the original cost data that they replace were obtained from reliable Federal government sources. FRA has found that this rule imposes no additional burden on any person, but rather is intended to provide a benefit by permitting the valid comparison of accident data over time. Accordingly, finding that notice and comment procedures are either impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, FRA is proceeding directly to the final rule.

FRA regularly recalculates the monetary reporting threshold using the formula published in Appendix B near the end of each calendar year. Therefore, any person affected by this rule should anticipate the on-going adjustment of the threshold and has reasonable time to make any minor changes necessary to come into compliance with the reporting requirements. FRA attempts to use the most recent data available to calculate the updated reporting threshold prior to the next calendar year. FRA has found that issuing the rule no later than December of each calendar year and making the rule effective on January 1, of the next year, allows FRA to use the most up-to-date data when calculating the reporting threshold and to compile data that accurately reflects rising wages and equipment costs. As such, FRA finds that it has good cause to make this final rule effective January 1, 2014.

This rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies and procedures, and determined to be non-significant under both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 in addition to DOT policies and procedures (44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979)).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires a review of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on small entities, unless the Secretary certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to Section 312 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), FRA has issued a final policy statement that formally establishes “small entities” as including railroads that meet the line-haulage revenue requirements of a Class III railroad. 49 CFR part 209, app. C. For other entities, the same dollar limit in revenues governs whether a railroad, contractor, or other respondent is a small entity. Id.

About 738 of the approximately 782 railroads in the United States are considered small entities by FRA. FRA certifies that this final rule will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. To the extent that this rule has any impact on small entities, the impact will be neutral or insignificant. The frequency of rail equipment accidents/incidents, and therefore also the frequency of required reporting, is generally proportional to the size of the railroad. A railroad that employs thousands of employees and operates trains millions of miles is exposed to greater risks than one whose operation is substantially smaller. Small railroads may go for months at a time without having a reportable occurrence of any type, and even longer without having a rail equipment accident/incident. For example, current FRA data indicate that 2,482 rail equipment accidents/incidents were reported in 2008, with small railroads reporting 334 of them. Data for 2009 show that 1,911 rail equipment accidents/incidents were reported, with small railroads reporting 325 of them. In 2010, 1,904 rail equipment accidents/incidents were reported, and small railroads reported 304 of them. In 2011, 2,023 rail equipment accidents/incidents were reported, with small railroads reporting 308 of them. In 2012, 1,742 rail equipment accidents/incidents were reported, with small railroads reporting 288 of them. On average over those five calendar years, small railroads reported about 15.5% of the total number of rail equipment accidents/incidents, ranging from 13% to 17% annually. FRA notes that these data are accurate as of the date of issuance of this final rule, and are subject to minor changes due to additional reporting. Absent this rulemaking (i.e., any increase in the monetary reporting threshold), the number of reportable accidents/incidents would increase, as keeping the 2013 threshold in place would not allow it to keep pace with the increasing dollar amounts of wages and rail equipment repair costs. Therefore, this rule will be neutral in effect. Increasing the reporting threshold will slightly decrease the recordkeeping burden for railroads over time. Any recordkeeping burden will not be significant and will affect the large railroads more than the small entities, due to the higher proportion of reportable rail equipment accidents/incidents experienced by large entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

There are no new information collection requirements associated with this final rule. Therefore, no estimate of a public reporting burden is required.

Federalism Implications

Executive Order 13132, entitled, “Federalism,” signed on August 4, 1999, requires that each agency “in a separately identified portion of the preamble to the regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal Register, provide[] to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a federalism summary impact statement, which consists of a description of the extent of the agency's prior consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of the State and local officials have been met.” This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and the responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in the Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, FRA has determined that this rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism assessment. Accordingly, a federalism assessment has not been prepared.

Environmental Impact

FRA has evaluated this regulation in accordance with its “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts” (FRA's Procedures) (64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999)) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has determined that this regulation is not a major FRA action (requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment) because it is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures. 64 FR 28545, 28547 (May 26, 1999). In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist with respect to this regulation that might trigger the need for a more detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this regulation is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Pursuant to Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency “shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law).” Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that “before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of [$143,100,000 or more (as adjusted for inflation)] in any one year, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written statement” detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. The final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $143,100,000 or more in any one year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

Energy Impact

Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: that (1)(i) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13211. FRA has determined that this final rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Consequently, FRA has determined that this regulatory action is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of Executive Order 13211.

Privacy Act

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all our comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

2. Amend § 225.19 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (c) and revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:§ 225.19 Primary groups of accidents/incidents.

(c) Group II—Rail equipment. Rail equipment accidents/incidents are collisions, derailments, fires, explosions, acts of God, and other events involving the operation of on-track equipment (standing or moving) that result in damages higher than the current reporting threshold (i.e., $6,700 for calendar years 2002 through 2005, $7,700 for calendar year 2006, $8,200 for calendar year 2007, $8,500 for calendar year 2008, $8,900 for calendar year 2009, $9,200 for calendar year 2010, $9,400 for calendar year 2011, $9,500 for calendar year 2012, $9,900 for calendar year 2013, and $10,500 for calendar year 2014) to railroad on-track equipment, signals, tracks, track structures, or roadbed, including labor costs and the costs for acquiring new equipment and material. * * *

(e) The reporting threshold is $6,700 for calendar years 2002 through 2005, $7,700 for calendar year 2006, $8,200 for calendar year 2007, $8,500 for calendar year 2008, $8,900 for calendar year 2009, $9,200 for calendar year 2010, $9,400 for calendar year 2011, $9,500 for calendar year 2012, $9,900 for calendar year 2013, and $10,500 for calendar year 2014. The procedure for determining the reporting threshold for calendar years 2006 and beyond appears as paragraphs 1-8 of appendix B to part 225.

This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Florida Tomato Committee (Committee) for the 2013-14 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.024 to $0.0375 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes handled. The Committee locally administers the Federal marketing order, which regulates the handling of tomatoes grown in Florida. Assessments upon Florida tomato handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

DATES:

Comments must be received by January 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or internet: http://www.regulations.gov. Comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the internet at the address provided above.

This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 125 and Order No. 966, both as amended (7 CFR part 966), regulating the handling of tomatoes grown in Florida, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Florida tomato handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as proposed herein would be applicable to all assessable Florida tomatoes beginning on August 1, 2013, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2013-14 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.024 to $0.0375 per 25-pound carton of Florida tomatoes.

The Florida tomato marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers of Florida tomatoes. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are therefore in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2012-13 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate of $0.024 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on August 22, 2013, and unanimously recommended 2013-14 expenditures of $1,824,600 and an assessment rate of $0.0375 per 25-pound carton of Florida tomatoes. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,672,952. The assessment rate of $0.0375 is $0.0135 higher than the rate currently in effect. The Committee depleted its reserve by using the funds to help meet its annual expenditures over the past year. Therefore, the Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate to generate sufficient funds to cover expenditures and increase its reserve balance.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2013-14 year include $800,000 for education and promotion, $458,500 for salaries, and $300,000 for research. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2012-13 were $750,000, $436,372, and $250,000, respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by reviewing anticipated expenses; expected shipments of Florida tomatoes; income from interest, Market Access Program funds, and specialty crop block grants; and the need to add additional funds to the reserve. Florida tomato shipments for the year are estimated at 35 million 25-pound cartons, which should provide $1,312,500 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, interest, and other sources would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Reserve funds projected to be $440,500 would be kept within the maximum permitted by the order of no more than approximately one fiscal period's expenses as stated in § 966.44.

The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations to modify the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2013-14 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 80 handlers of tomatoes subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 100 producers in the production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based on industry and Committee data, the average annual price for fresh Florida tomatoes during the 2012-13 season was approximately $10.64 per 25-pound carton, and total fresh shipments were approximately 35.5 million cartons. Based on the average price, about 80 percent of handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. In addition, based on production data, grower prices as reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the total number of Florida tomato growers, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of Florida tomatoes may be classified as small entities.

This proposal would increase the assessment rate for the 2013-14 and subsequent fiscal periods from the current rate of $0.024 to $0.0375 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes. The Committee unanimously recommended the increased assessment rate and 2013-14 expenditures of $1,824,600. The increase was recommended to generate sufficient funds to cover the Committee's expenditures and add to its reserve. As previously stated, income derived from handler assessments, interest, and other income would be adequate to meet this year's anticipated expenses.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming season indicates that the grower price for the 2013-14 season should average around $9.73 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes. Utilizing this estimate and the proposed assessment rate of $0.0375, estimated assessment revenue as a percentage of total grower revenue would be approximately 0.4 percent for the season.

Alternative expenditure and assessment levels were discussed prior to arriving at this budget. However, the Committee agreed on $1,824,600 in expenditures, reviewed the quantity of assessable tomatoes and the need to add additional funds to the reserve, and recommended an assessment rate of $0.0375 per 25-pound carton of tomatoes.

This action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. These costs would be offset by the benefits derived from the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Florida tomato industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 22, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Florida tomato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide more opportunities for citizens to access Government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide.Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously-mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

A 15-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Fifteen days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2013-14 fiscal period began on August 1, 2013, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable Florida tomatoes handled during such fiscal period; (2) the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses, which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action, which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), published, on December 16, 2009, a notice of availability and request for comment on the NRC's draft regulatory basis [previously known as the technical basis] document for a proposed rulemaking that would revise the security requirements for storing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), and for storing SNF and/or high-level radioactive waste (HLW) in a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS). The draft regulatory basis, comments on the draft regulatory basis, and the NRC staff's responses to these comments, are located on the Federal e-Rulemaking Web site at http://www.rulemaking.gov under Docket ID: NRC-2009-0558 and copies may also be obtained using the other methods specified below.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2009-0558 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2009-0558. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. In addition, for the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided in a table in the section of this document entitled, Availability of Documents.

In 2007, the Commission approved the initiation of a rulemaking recommended by the NRC staff in SECY-07-0148, to strengthen security requirements at ISFSIs. On December 16, 2009 (74 FR 66589), the NRC staff published in the Federal Register a notice of availability and request for comment on the NRC staff's draft regulatory basis for the rulemaking. In light of opposition, expressed in comments, on some of the key technical approaches discussed in the draft regulatory basis, the staff sought direction from the Commission concerning the proposed rulemaking. In SRM-SECY-10-0114, the Commission directed the staff to continue its assessment of the threat against ISFSIs, engage stakeholders, develop draft guidance, and provide a supplemental paper (now due on May 14, 2014) to evaluate whether changes in the proposed rulemaking's direction are necessary. The NRC staff is still in the information gathering stage for this planned security rulemaking.

The comments on the draft regulatory basis have been summarized for purposes of clarity and conciseness and grouped together into 20 subject areas. Five individuals or groups submitted written comments on the draft regulatory basis, and their comments have been assigned the following identification (ID) numbers:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Notice of extension of public comment period.

SUMMARY:

On October 25, 2013, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) regarding energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans, with a comment period that was scheduled to close December 24, 2013. This document announces an extension of the time period for submitting comments on the NOPR. The comment period is extended 30 days.

DATES:

The comment period for the NOPR regarding energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans published on October 25, 2013 (78 FR 64067) is extended to January 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnace Fans, and provide docket number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0011 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) 1904-AC22. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

2. Email: FurnFans-2010-STD-0011@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in Word Perfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.

3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to Chad_S._Whiteman@omb.eop.gov.

Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regu lations.gov, including Federal Register notices, framework documents, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/41. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this notice on the www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

On October 25, 2013, DOE published a NOPR in the Federal Register (78 FR 64067) to make available and invite comments on the proposed rule regarding energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans. That notice set a deadline for the submission of written comment by December 24, 2013, and comments were also accepted at a public meeting held at DOE Headquarters on December 3, 2013. Several stakeholders requested an extension of the comment period. These stakeholders stated the additional time is necessary for interested parties to consider and respond to the proposed rule and public meeting presentation, in order to submit meaningful and useful comments.

After careful consideration of the multiple requests for more time to develop comments, DOE has determined that an extension of the public comment period is appropriate and in the public interest based on the foregoing reasoning. Accordingly, DOE is hereby extending the comment period and will consider any comments received by January 23, 2014.

The NCUA Board (Board) proposes to amend part 701 of its regulations to require examinations and other contacts between NCUA staff and staff or officials of a federal credit union (FCU) occur in an FCU's business offices or other public location. This does not include a private residence. The proposal also would require affected FCUs to bring to the meeting site any records or materials NCUA staff requests, and to maintain at least one method for members and NCUA staff to contact the credit union. These requirements would apply upon the effective date of a final rule. Additionally, the proposal would require all FCUs to obtain and maintain a business office, not located on the premises of a private residence address, no later than two years following the effective date of a final rule.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before January 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):

Public Inspection: You may view all public comments, as submitted, on NCUA's Web site at http://www.ncua.gov/Legal/Regs/Pages/PropRegs.aspx, except those we cannot post for technical reasons. NCUA will not edit or remove identifying or contact information from the public comments submitted. You may inspect paper copies of comments in NCUA's law library at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, by appointment weekdays between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. To make an appointment, call (703) 518-6546 or send an email to OGCMail@ncua.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Wirick, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or by telephone: (703) 518-6540.

The Federal Credit Union Act (Act) requires FCUs to “make financial reports to it [the NCUA Board] as and when it may require” and requires FCUs to make “books and records accessible to” NCUA for examination purposes.1 Likewise, federally insured, state-chartered credit unions must make “reports of condition . . . in such form . . . as the Board may require.2 Under this authority, the Board requires all insured credit unions to file quarterly call reports.3

1 12 U.S.C. 1756.

2Id. 1782(a)(1).

3 12 CFR 741.6.

The Act also requires and authorizes the Board to appoint examiners to examine any insured credit union to determine the credit union's condition.4 NCUA examiners often review and verify the information credit unions submit in their call reports through on-site examinations. Specialized NCUA staff, such as problem case officers, also visit credit unions to address issues identified in the examination process.

4 12 U.S.C. 1784.

In addition to the Board's statutory responsibilities to obtain financial reports and conduct examinations of insured credit unions, the Act gives the Board general authority to adopt regulations related to the oversight of FCUs. Taken together, these powers give the Board the authority to specify the location and other conditions of examinations and other on-site contacts with FCUs, as well as to require FCUs to conduct business in a commercial setting rather than in a home.

2. NCUA Authority To Direct Conditions of Work for NCUA Employees

The Act grants the Board authority to “direct employees of the Board” 5 and “define their duties.” 6 Most of NCUA's 1,260 employees are credit union examiners who work on-site at credit union locations, performing examinations and other types of reviews. By requiring that all examinations and other on-site contacts between NCUA staff and FCU officials occur in business offices or other public locations, the proposal ensures that examinations and other FCU contacts occur in a professional and safe setting.

5Id. 1766(j)(1).

6Id. 1789(a)(4).

3. Home-Based Credit Unions

In the early days of credit union organizing, it was common for a credit union to operate out of the home of one of its officials. As credit unions grew, however, most added offices either at a sponsor's location or in another commercial setting. NCUA has identified approximately 95 remaining home-based, federally insured credit unions. These are credit unions operated out of a home or on the premises of a home address, such as in a garage, sunroom, or basement apartment. Eighty-one of these are FCUs, with assets ranging from $34,000 to $12,000,000. Most of these FCUs are very small; 34 have assets below $1,000,000 and 38 have assets between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.7

7 The 14 federally insured, state-chartered, home-based credit unions have assets ranging from $115,000 to nearly $11,000,000. The state-chartered, home-based credit unions are located in nine states as follows: Kansas has five, Utah has two, and Alabama, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Vermont each have one.

More recently, NCUA has encouraged examiners and other staff to arrange meetings with officials of home-based FCUs in public places, such as libraries or hotel conference rooms. NCUA did not, however, prohibit staff from meeting with an FCU official at a private home if the official was reluctant to come to another location.

When an on-site contact occurs at the home of an FCU official, NCUA has no way of ensuring the environment is safe for its employees or conducive to working efficiently and securely. NCUA staff who have conducted on-site contacts in homes have recently raised concerns about the conditions they sometimes face. These concerns include: aggressive animals; lack of proper seating, lighting, and rest room access; interruptions from other residents of the home; exposure to allergens; poorly maintained driveways that pose hazards to examiners' vehicles; and low clearances or dilapidated stairways to access basement home offices. These types of concerns are much less likely to arise in a public, non-residential setting. For those home-based credit unions located in rural areas, NCUA is also concerned about the potential for examiners being isolated in a remote location.

Recently, NCUA began extensive efforts to encourage home-based credit unions to obtain commercial office space. NCUA's Office of Small Credit Union Initiatives (OSCUI) has worked with NCUA's Regional Offices to identify home-based credit unions. OSCUI then contacted each of these credit unions to offer assistance in planning for the credit union's long-term viability, including obtaining office space. OSCUI also offered grants to support relocation of home-based credit unions holding the NCUA Low Income Designation. To date, no home-based credit union has taken advantage of these services.

4. Why is NCUA proposing this rule?

The Board proposes to amend its regulations to require that any examinations or other on-site contacts between NCUA staff and FCU officials occur at an FCU's business offices or at a mutually agreeable public location. This does not include a private residence. No later than two years following the effective date of a final rule, the proposal would also require all FCUs to obtain and maintain a business office, not located in a private residence. The Board is proposing this rule because, as discussed above, it is concerned that continuing to allow NCUA staff to meet with FCU officials at private residences poses safety risks and is not favorable to conducting business in an appropriate fashion. In addition, the lack of a business office impedes the ability of FCUs to thrive and grow by obtaining new members or providing additional services to existing members.

The proposed rule would also require FCUs to maintain and monitor telephone numbers or electronic mail addresses, or both. The Board believes another impediment to an FCU's long-term viability is the inability of members to contact the FCU. In the recent outreach to home-based credit unions, OSCUI staff discovered that many of these credit unions lacked a dedicated telephone number with an answering system, a monitored electronic mail address, or both. Lacking both telephone and electronic mail access is not acceptable for a present-day financial institution. NCUA staff, FCU members, and potential FCU members need a reliable way to reach the FCU by electronic mail or telephone, leave messages, and receive prompt replies.

Operating an FCU out of a private residence also creates significant operational risks. The preservation and security of records is a critical concern, and NCUA is concerned many home-based FCUs are storing records in areas where they are at risk for accidental destruction, such as in basements near water heater tanks. Member privacy is also at risk if records are stored where other residents of the household could access them. Finally, as occurred in a recent situation, if an FCU official operating a home-based credit union dies or becomes disabled, NCUA can face barriers to accessing the FCU's records.

Further, a home-based FCU that pays rent for its space to the residing official creates disincentives for FCU management to procure appropriate space. These rental arrangements, by their nature, pose a potential conflict of interest for FCU officials.

The Board also notes that requiring examinations and other contacts with NCUA staff to occur in an alternative public location for credit unions that lack offices is not an ideal long-term solution. While addressing NCUA's concerns about staff safety and working conditions, meeting in public locations raises other risks. The main concern is the potential for inadvertent violations of privacy laws, or disclosure of confidential supervisory information related to the FCU's condition. For example, credit union examinations frequently involve discussion of the details of particular member loan files, which contain personally identifiable information (PII) that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity. Likewise, examination contacts focus on the FCU's operations and often involve discussions of corrective actions the FCU must take. If these discussions occur in the alternative public locations, as permitted for the first two years under the proposal, NCUA staff and FCU officials must exercise caution that no other parties can overhear any PII or confidential supervisory information.

Having credit union officials move paper files to and from meeting locations, as would be required by the proposal if the credit union is unable to send records electronically, also entails privacy risks. When examiners take possession of an FCU's books and records outside of a credit union's office, the potential for inadvertent disclosure of PII increases further. As required by the Office of Management and Budget, NCUA has adopted guidance for staff regarding privacy responsibilities. These instructions require staff to take a variety of steps to safeguard PII.8 One requirement is that staff taking possession of an FCU's records must conduct the contact in a non-public place.9 Combining this requirement with the proposal's prohibition on meetings in residences limits the number of acceptable locations for off-site contacts.

In summary, while conducting contacts in alternative public locations, NCUA staff and credit union officials must exercise extreme care to avoid violations of privacy laws or revealing confidential supervisory information about the credit union. In the longer term, the Board has determined to eliminate this risk by requiring all FCUs to have an office that will facilitate discussions involving members' PII and confidential supervisory information without the risk of unauthorized disclosure of this sensitive information.

The Board emphasizes that it is sensitive to the challenges the smallest FCUs face, and wants to ensure the long-term viability of all FCUs. Lacking appropriate commercial office space, however, is a significant barrier to both long-term viability and effective supervision. As noted above, over the past year, NCUA has undertaken extensive efforts to assist home-based credit unions, and these efforts will continue. OSCUI will offer another round of grants to support relocation of home-based credit unions that hold the NCUA Low Income Designation in 2014. OSCUI will also produce a Home Relocation Guide best practice document and work with all affected FCUs to provide guidance on relocation.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

The proposed rule adds new section 701.40 to part 701 of NCUA's regulations. Paragraph (a) requires that any meetings between an FCU and NCUA staff occur at an FCU's offices or another alternative public location. This paragraph excludes from the definition of “office,” private homes, as well as separate areas of residential premises. Defining “office” in this manner will address the many varieties of home-based offices, including rooms in homes, separate apartments attached to homes, separate buildings on residential premises such as garages, and separate apartments within a residential apartment building not zoned for retail use. All of these types of locations raise similar concerns in terms of working conditions and safety for NCUA staff, as well as member accessibility.

Paragraph (b) specifies that any home-based FCU official that meets with NCUA staff at an alternative public location must deliver all necessary records to that location. The proposal lists examples of acceptable alternative public locations, such as restaurants, hotel lobbies or meeting rooms, libraries, and community centers. For FCUs that operate from churches or other communal sites such as lodges, the church or lodge office would also be an acceptable alternative public location under the proposed rule. FCU officials and NCUA staff must, however, find a meeting space that complies with NCUA's privacy regulations related to the security of records provided to NCUA. Where an FCU's records with PII are present and in the possession of NCUA staff, the meeting space must be in a separate area, such as a conference room in a hotel, library, or community center.

Subparagraph (c) requires FCUs to maintain and monitor, at a minimum, either an electronic mail address or a telephone number.

The proposed rule applies only to FCUs, not all federally insured credit unions. State supervisory authorities may continue to conduct their examinations of home-based, state credit unions at any location they choose.

Two years after the final rule's effective date, the proposal would revise § 701.40 to prohibit FCUs from operating out of homes. The proposal would also prohibit storage of FCU records at residential locations and continue to require FCUs to maintain at least one method of contact. As permitted in conjunction with the requirement that NCUA staff meet with FCU officials at an office or other public location, an FCU that operates out of a church office or similar location will be deemed in compliance with the requirement to obtain office space. OSCUI will consult with affected FCUs to determine if specific situations meet the office requirement.

The proposed rule does not immediately require FCUs to operate out of an office location, so that all affected FCUs have time to adapt to this change. The delayed effective date for obtaining office space, combined with the immediate requirement to meet in public places, improves working conditions for NCUA staff in the short term without immediately imposing a new requirement on small FCUs. As noted above, OSCUI staff will continue to be available to assist affected FCUs as they transition to obtaining business office locations, with appropriate and secure records storage areas, over the next two years.

The proposed rule intends to ensure that all FCUs operate in a manner consistent with modern-day expectations for insured financial institutions. In conjunction with its recent rule requiring all federally insured credit unions to file quarterly call reports electronically, NCUA provided grants so that all credit unions with NCUA's Low Income Designation that lacked computers could obtain them. NCUA will make similar efforts to assist home-based FCUs to comply with these proposed requirements.

III. Request for Comments

NCUA requests comments on all aspects of the proposed rule. In light of NCUA's concerns about staff safety and working conditions, NCUA particularly requests comments about whether the portion of the rule requiring home-based credit unions to meet NCUA staff at an alternative public location should also apply to state-chartered, federally insured credit unions.

IV. Regulatory ProceduresRegulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a proposed rule may have on a substantial number of small credit unions (primarily those under $50 million in assets). Although this rule would affect relatively few FCUs, NCUA recognizes that all of the affected FCUs are small credit unions. As discussed above, NCUA is offering assistance to locate suitable meeting space at low or no cost as well as assistance with initial relocation expenses. Over the longer term, NCUA will work with officials of affected FCUs to provide consulting, training, and education and resource support as home-based FCUs transition to commercial locations. Accordingly, NCUA certifies this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden. For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of either a reporting or a recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. The proposed change to part 701 simply requires examinations and other meetings with NCUA staff to occur in certain authorized locations, and that FCUs maintain a functioning telephone number or electronic mail address, or both. This proposed rule will not create new paperwork burdens or modify any existing paperwork burdens.

Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. Given the minor requirements the rule imposes on FCUs only, it will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the Executive Order.

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.10

10 Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 701

Credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

By the National Credit Union Administration Board on December 12, 2013.Gerard Poliquin,Secretary of the Board.

For the reasons set forth above, NCUA proposes to amend 12 CFR part 701 as follows:

PART 701—ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS1. The authority citation for part 701 continues to read as follows:Authority:

2. Add § 701.40 to part 701 to read as follows:§ 701.40 Examinations and communication requirements.

(a) Office location. All examinations, on-site contacts, and other meetings between a federal credit union and NCUA, where NCUA staff are physically present, must be held in a federal credit union's offices or at an alternative public location. For purposes of this section, a federal credit union's offices do not include an office maintained in a home or on the premises of a residential address.

(b) Alternative public location. For purposes of this section, an alternative public location means a place designated by NCUA staff that is open and available to the general public and that is generally accessible during normal business hours. Alternative public locations may include, but are not limited to, restaurants, hotel lobbies or meeting rooms, libraries, and community centers. Federal credit union officials meeting with NCUA staff at an alternative public location must deliver to that location all credit union records required by NCUA staff. For contacts where member information protected under federal privacy law or regulation is present or discussed, the meeting location must allow for necessary safeguards of this information.

(c) Required communication services. All federal credit unions must maintain either an electronic mail address or telephone service, or both. The electronic mail address or telephone number must be dedicated exclusively for the credit union's business purposes, and authorized credit union officials must monitor them regularly.

3. Effective [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], revise § 701.40 to read as follows:§ 701.40 FCU office location and requirements.

(a) Office location. Federal credit unions must maintain at least one office in a building that is accessible to credit union members during the federal credit union's normal business hours. Office space maintained in a home or on the premises of a residential address does not meet this requirement.

(b) Records. An FCU's records must be stored either at the FCU's office location or another commercial location designed for secure records storage.

(c) Required communication services. All federal credit unions must maintain either an electronic mail address or telephone service, or both. The electronic mail address or telephone number must be dedicated exclusively for the credit union's business purposes, and authorized credit union officials must monitor them regularly.

This action proposes special conditions for Airbus A350-900 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. These design features include a high-speed protection system. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

We must receive your comments by February 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2013-1001 using any of the following methods:

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.

We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these special conditions. You can inspect the docket before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which you have written the docket number. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you.

Background

On August 25, 2008, Airbus applied for a type certificate for their new A350-900 series airplane. Later, Airbus requested and the FAA approved an extension to the application for FAA type certification to June 28, 2009. The A350-900 series has a conventional layout with twin wing-mounted Rolls Royce Trent engines. It features a twin aisle 9-abreast economy class layout, and accommodates side-by-side placement of LD-3 containers in the cargo compartment. The basic A350-900 series configuration accommodates 315 passengers in a standard two-class arrangement. The design cruise speed is Mach 0.89 with a Maximum Take-Off Weight of 591,000 lbs. Airbus proposes the A350-900 series to be certified for extended operations (ETOPS) beyond 180 minutes at entry into service for up to a 420 minute maximum diversion time.

The A350-900, like Airbus A320, A330, A340 and A380 series aircraft, has a high speed protection system that limits nose down pilot authority at speeds above VC/MC, and prevents the airplane from actually performing the maneuver required under § 25.335(b)(1). Special conditions are necessary to address the Airbus A350-900 series high speed protection system. The proposed special conditions identify various symmetric and non-symmetric maneuvers that will ensure that an appropriate design dive speed, VD/MD, is established.

Type Certification Basis

Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Airbus must show that the A350-900 series meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the A350-900 series because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the A350-900 series must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Airbus A350-900 series will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

A high speed protection system that limits nose down pilot authority at speeds above VC/MC, and prevents the airplane from actually performing the maneuver required under § 25.335(b)(1). The proposed special conditions identify various symmetric and non-symmetric maneuvers that will ensure that an appropriate design dive speed, VD/MD, is established.

Discussion

Section 25.335(b)(1) is an analytical envelope condition which was originally adopted in Part 4b of the Civil Air Regulations in order to provide an acceptable speed margin between design cruise speed and design dive speed. Flutter clearance design speeds and airframe design loads are impacted by the design dive speed. While the initial condition for the upset specified in the rule is 1g level flight, protection is afforded for other inadvertent overspeed conditions as well. Section 25.335(b)(1) is intended as a conservative enveloping condition for potential overspeed conditions, including non-symmetric ones.

To establish that potential overspeed conditions are enveloped, the applicant should demonstrate that any reduced speed margin, based on the high speed protection system in the A350-900 series, will not be exceeded in inadvertent, or gust induced, upsets resulting in initiation of the dive from non-symmetric attitudes; or that the airplane is protected by the flight control laws from getting into non-symmetric upset conditions. The proposed special conditions identify various symmetric and non-symmetric maneuvers that will ensure than an appropriate design dive speed, VD/MD, is established.

These special conditions are proposed in lieu of § 25.335(b)(1). Section 25.335(b)(2), which also addresses the design dive speed, is applied separately (Advisory Circular (AC) 25.335-1A provides an acceptable means of compliance to § 25.335(b)(2)). The applicant should conduct a demonstration that includes a comprehensive set of conditions, as described below.

Paragraph (2) of the proposed special condition references AC 25-7C, section 32.c.(3), included here for information.

“(3) Gust Upset. In the following three upset tests, the values of displacement should be appropriate to the airplane type and should depend upon airplane stability and inertia characteristics. The lower and upper limits should be used for airplanes with low and high maneuverability, respectively.

(a) With the airplane trimmed in wings-level flight, simulate a transient gust by rapidly rolling to the maximum bank angle appropriate for the airplane, but not less than 45 degrees nor more than 60 degrees. The rudder and longitudinal control should be held fixed during the time that the required bank is being attained. The rolling velocity should be arrested at this bank angle. Following this, the controls should be abandoned for a minimum of 3 seconds after VMO/MMO or 10 seconds, whichever occurs first.

(b) Perform a longitudinal upset from normal cruise. Airplane trim is determined at VMO/MMO using power/thrust required for level flight but with not more than maximum continuous power/thrust. (If VMO/MMO cannot be reached in level flight with maximum continuous power or thrust, then the airplane should be trimmed at VMO/MMO in a descent.) This is followed by a decrease in speed, after which a pitch attitude of 6-12 degrees nose down, as appropriate for the airplane type, is attained using the same power/thrust and trim. The airplane is permitted to accelerate until 3 seconds after VMO/MMO. The force limits of § 25.143(d) for short term application apply.

(c) Perform a two-axis upset, consisting of combined longitudinal and lateral upsets. Perform the longitudinal upset, as in paragraph (b) above, and when the pitch attitude is set, but before reaching VMO/MMO, roll the airplane 15-25 degrees. The established attitude should be maintained until 3 seconds after VMO/MMO.”

Paragraphs (3) and (4) of the proposed special condition indicate that failures of the high speed protection system must be improbable and must be annunciated to the pilots. If these two criteria are not met, then the probability that the established dive speed will be exceeded, and the resulting risk to the airplane, is too great. On the other hand, if the high speed protection system is known to be inoperative, then dispatch of the airplane could be acceptable under an approved Minimum Equipment List (MEL) containing language similar to paragraph (5). Dispatch under an MEL would require that appropriate reduced operating speeds, VMO/MMO, are provided in the airplane flight manual, and the cockpit display of those reduced speeds, as well as the overspeed warning for exceeding those speeds, are equivalent to that of the normal airplane with the high speed protection system operative.

We do not believe that application of the Interaction of Systems and Structures special condition (reference A350 issue paper A-3) or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Certification Specification (CS) 25.302, is appropriate in this case, because design dive speed is, in and of itself, part of the design criteria. Stability and control, flight loads, and flutter evaluations all depend on the design dive speed. Therefore, a single design dive speed should be established that will not be exceeded taking into account the performance of the high speed protection system, as well as its failure modes, failure indications and accompanying flight manual instructions.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions apply to A350-900 series airplanes. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another series incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that series as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Airbus A350-900 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Proposed Special Conditions

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Airbus A350-900 series airplanes.

(1) In lieu of compliance with § 25.335(b)(1), if the flight control system includes functions that act automatically to initiate recovery before the end of the 20 second period specified in § 25.335(b)(1), VD/MD must be determined from the greater of the speeds resulting from conditions (a) and (b) below. The speed increase occurring in these maneuvers may be calculated, if reliable or conservative aerodynamic data are used.

(a) From an initial condition of stabilized flight at VC/MC, the airplane is upset so as to take up a new flight path 7.5 degrees below the initial path. Control application, up to full authority, is made to try and maintain this new flight path. Twenty seconds after initiating the upset, manual recovery is made at a load factor of 1.5 g (0.5 acceleration increment), or such greater load factor that is automatically applied by the system with the pilot's pitch control set to neutral. Power, as specified in § 25.175(b)(1)(iv), is assumed until recovery is initiated, at which time power reduction and the use of pilot controlled drag devices may be used.

(b) From a speed below VC/MC, with power to maintain stabilized level flight at this speed, the airplane is upset so as to accelerate through VC/MC at a flight path 15 degrees below the initial path (or at the steepest nose down attitude that the system will permit with full control authority if less than 15 degrees). The pilot's controls may be in the neutral position after reaching VC/MC and before recovery is initiated. Recovery may be initiated three seconds after operation of the high speed warning system by application of a load of 1.5g (0.5 acceleration increment), or such greater load factor that is automatically applied by the system with the pilot's pitch control neutral. Power may be reduced simultaneously. All other means of decelerating the airplane, the use of which is authorized up to the highest speed reached in the maneuver, may be used. The interval between successive pilot actions must not be less than one second.

(2) The applicant must also demonstrate that the speed margin, established as above, will not be exceeded in inadvertent, or gust induced, upsets resulting in initiation of the dive from non-symmetric attitudes, unless the airplane is protected by the flight control laws from getting into non-symmetric upset conditions. The upset maneuvers described in AC 25-7C, Chapter 2, Section 8, Paragraph 32c.(3)(a) and (c), may be used to comply with this requirement.

(3) Detected loss of the high speed protection function must be less than 10−3 per flight hour.

(4) Failures of the system must be annunciated to the pilots. The Operating Limitations Section of the Airplane Flight Manual must contain instructions that reduce the maximum operating speeds, Vmax/Mmax, to a value that maintains a speed margin between these speeds and VD/MD that is consistent with showing compliance to § 25.335(b) without the benefit of the high speed protection system.

(5) Dispatch of the airplane with the high speed protection system inoperative is prohibited except under an approved Minimum Equipment List (MEL) that requires Airplane Flight Manual instructions to indicate reduced maximum operating speeds, as described in paragraph (4). In addition, the cockpit display of the reduced operating speeds, as well as the overspeed warning for exceeding those speeds, must be equivalent to that of the normal airplane with the high speed protection system operative. Also, it must be shown that no additional hazards are introduced with the high speed protection system inoperative.

We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2007-19-09R1 that applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B1 turboshaft engines that do not have modification TU157 incorporated. AD 2007-19-09R1 requires replacement of the hydromechanical metering unit (HMU) with a serviceable HMU. Since we issued AD 2007-19-09R1, we received reports of ruptures on HMU constant delta pressure valves that have less than 2,000 hours in service. This proposed AD would continue to require HMU replacement; reduce the compliance interval; and include the power turbine (C2) cycle consumption rate when determining compliance times. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the HMU, which could lead to damage to the engine, and damage to the aircraft.

DATES:

We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2007-27009; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the MCAI, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-27009; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-02-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

On May 24, 2010, we issued AD 2007-19-09R1, Amendment 39-16322 (75 FR 30687, June 2, 2010). That AD applies to all Turbomeca S.A. 2B1 turboshaft engines that do not incorporate modification TU157. That AD requires replacement of the HMU with a serviceable HMU. AD 2007-19-09R1 resulted from reports of HMU valve rupture. We issued AD 2007-19-09R1 to prevent failure of the HMU, which could lead to damage to the engine and damage to the aircraft.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

Since we issued AD 2007-19-09R1, Amendment 39-16322 (75 FR 30687, June 2, 2010), we received reports of ruptures on HMU constant delta pressure valves that have less than 2,000 hours in service. Also since we issued AD 2007-19-09R1, the European Aviation Safety Agency has issued AD 2013-0171, dated July 30, 2013, which reintroduces a requirement for periodic replacement of the HMU.

FAA's Determination

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2007-19-09R1, Amendment 39-16322 (75 FR 30687, June 2, 2010) but would reduce the compliance interval and include the C2 cycle consumption rate when determining compliance times.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 264 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 hour per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Parts cost about $5,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,342,440.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B1 turboshaft engines that do not have modification TU157 incorporated.

(d) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by reports of ruptures on hydromechanical metering unit (HMU) constant delta pressure valves that have less than 2,000 hours in service. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HMU, which could lead to damage to the engine and damage to the aircraft.

(e) Compliance

Within the compliance times specified, replace the HMU with a part eligible for installation, unless already done.

(1) HMU Operating Hours and Power Turbine (C2) Cycles Are Known.

(i) If on the effective date of this AD, the HMU C2 cycles are less than 900, then replace the HMU before the HMU accumulates 1,000 C2 cycles or 1,500 HMU operating hours, whichever occurs first;

(ii) If on the effective date of this AD, the HMU C2 cycles are 900 or more, then replace the HMU within 100 HMU C2 cycles after the effective date of this AD;

(i) If on the effective date of this AD, the HMU operating hours are less than 1,100, then replace the HMU before accumulating 1,200 HMU operating hours;

(ii) If on the effective date of this AD, the HMU operating hours are 1,100 or more, then replace the HMU within 100 HMU operating hours after the effective date of this AD;

(iii) Thereafter, replace HMUs at every 1,200 HMU operating hours.

(f) Definition

For the purposes of this AD, “HMU operating hours” or “C2 cycles” are defined as operating hours or C2 cycles since new, since overhaul, or since application of Turbomeca S.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No. 292 73 2105, Version B, dated December 16, 2010, or earlier version, or of Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory SB (MSB) No. 292 73 2818, Version D, dated June 24, 2013, or earlier version, whichever occurs later.

(g) Optional Terminating Action

Incorporation of Turbomeca S.A. SB No. 292 73 2157, Version C, dated July 17, 2013, or earlier version, is terminating action to the replacement and repetitive inspection requirements of this AD.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

If you performed the actions required by paragraphs (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD using an earlier version of Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 73 2818, Version D, dated June 24, 2013, you met the requirements of this AD. However, you must still repetitively replace the HMU as required by paragraphs (e)(1)(iii) and (e)(2)(iii) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.

(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2013-0171, dated July 30, 2013. You may examine the AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2007-27009.

(3) Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 73 2818, Version D, dated June 24, 2013 and Turbomeca S.A. SB No. 292 73 2157, Version C, dated July 17, 2013, and Turbomeca S.A. SB No. 292 73 2105, Version B, dated December 16, 2010, pertain to the subject of this AD and can be obtained from Turbomeca S.A. using the contact information in paragraph (j)(4) of this AD.

(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2010-13-04, which applies to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. AD 2010-13-04 requires modifying the nose landing gear (NLG) trailing arm. Since we issued AD 2010-13-04, we received a report of several missing or damaged pivot pin retention bolts. This proposed AD would require installing a new pivot pin retention mechanism. This proposed AD would also add airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the pivot pin retention bolt, which could result in a loss of directional control or loss of a NLG tire during take-off or landing.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the MCAI, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2013-1029; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-177-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Since we issued AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010), Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-29R1, dated August 14, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Two in-service incidents have been reported on DHC-8 Series 400 aircraft in which the nose landing gear (NLG) trailing arm pivot pin retention bolt (part number NAS6204-13D) was damaged. One incident involved the left hand NLG tire which ruptured on take-off. Investigation determined that the retention bolt failure was due to repeated contact of the castellated nut with the towing device including both the towbar and the towbarless rigs. The loss of the retention bolt allowed the pivot pin to migrate from its normal position and resulted in contact with and rupture of the tire. The loss of the pivot pin could compromise retention of the trailing arm and could result in a loss of directional control due to loss of nose wheel steering. The loss of an NLG tire or the loss of directional control could adversely affect the aircraft during take off or landing.

To prevent the potential failure of the pivot pin retention bolt, Bombardier Aerospace has developed a modification which includes a new retention bolt, a reverse orientation of the retention bolt and a rework of the weight on wheel (WOW) proximity sensor cover to provide clearance for the re-oriented retention bolt.

Since the original issue of this [Canadian] AD [which corresponds to AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010)], there have been several reports of pivot pin retention bolts found missing or damaged. Additional investigation determined that the failures were caused by high contact stresses on the retention bolt due to excessive frictional torque on the pivot pin and an adverse tolerance condition at the retention bolt.

Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD mandates the installation of a new pivot pin retention mechanism.

This proposed AD would also add airplanes to the applicability. AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010), affected Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes, serial numbers 4001, 4003, 4004, 4006, and 4008 through 4238 inclusive. This proposed AD would affect serial numbers 4001 through 4435 inclusive. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-1029.

Relevant Service Information

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 84-32-110, Revision A, dated April 8, 2013. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 383 airplanes of U.S. registry.

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

This AD was prompted by a report of several missing or damaged pivot pin retention bolts. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the pivot pin retention bolt, which could result in a loss of directional control or a NLG tire during take-off or landing.

(f) Compliance

You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.

(g) Retained Actions and Compliance

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010), with no changes. For airplanes having serial numbers 4001, 4003, 4004, 4006, and 4008 through 4238 inclusive: Within 2,000 flight hours after July 28, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-13-04), modify the NLG trailing arm by incorporating Bombardier Modification Summary 4-113599, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-65, Revision A, dated March 2, 2009.

(h) New Requirement of This AD: Installing a New Pivot Pin Retention Mechanism

For airplanes having serial numbers 4001 through 4435 inclusive: Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install a new pivot pin retention mechanism by incorporating Bombardier Modification Summary 4-113749, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-110, Revision A, dated April 8, 2013.

(i) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service Information

(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before July 28, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010)), using the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-65, dated December 17, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-110, dated December 21, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANE-170, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent, or by the DAH with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval). For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD. You are required to ensure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(k) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-29R1, dated August 14, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-1029.

For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact M7 Aerospace LP, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 824-9421; fax: (210) 804-7766; Internet: http://www.m7aerospace.com; email: none. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching and locating Docket Number FAA-2013-1057; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2013-1057; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-041-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

We received reports of two M7 Aerospace LLC Model SA227 airplanes with multiple fatigue cracks in the FS 69.31 front pressure bulkhead. The cracks are located in the radii of the left-hand and right-hand part number 27-21027 frames. The cracks were discovered by maintenance personnel after the flight crew reported trouble maintaining normal cabin pressure. The root cause for multiple site fatigue cracking is the normal ground-air-ground pressure cycles.

This unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in cabin depressurization.

Relevant Service Information

We reviewed M7 Aerospace LLC SA26 Series Service Bulletin 26-53-001 R1; SA226 Series Service Bulletin 226-53-017 R1; SA227 Series Service Bulletin 227-53-011 R1; and SA227 Series Commuter Category Service Bulletin CC7-53-007 R1, all revised November 6, 2013. The service information describes procedures for repetitively inspecting (visually) the FS 51.31 front pressure bulkhead on SA26 series airplanes and FS 69.31 front pressure bulkhead on SA226 and SA227 series airplanes for cracks, and, if any crack damage is found, reporting and repairing any cracked bulkhead.

FAA's Determination

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. This proposed AD also requires sending the inspection results to M7 Aerospace LLC.

Operators who had the initial inspection and resulting repairs accomplished using procedures different from the M7 Aerospace LLC service information required by this AD action may apply for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) following the instructions in paragraph (m) of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 360 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this proposed AD would be mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This AD was prompted by reports of airplanes with multiple fatigue cracks in the FS 69.31 front pressure bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the FS 51.31 (SA26 airplanes) and FS 69.31 (SA226 and SA227 airplanes) front pressure bulkhead, which if not corrected, could result in cabin depressurization.

(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h) through (j) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, unless already done.

(g) Inspection for Crack Damage

Do a detailed visual inspection of the front pressure bulkhead using the compliance times in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, as applicable.

(1) For all SA26-AT and SA26-T airplanes: Do a detailed visual inspection of the F.S. 51.31 front pressure bulkhead following paragraphs A. through E. of the Accomplishment Instructions in M7 Aerospace LLC SA26 Series Service Bulletin 26-53-001 R1, revised November 6, 2013.

(2) For all SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226 T(B), and SA226-TC airplanes: Do a detailed visual inspection of the F.S. 69.31 front pressure bulkhead following paragraphs A. through E. of the Accomplishment Instructions in M7 Aerospace LLC SA226 Series Service Bulletin 226-53-017 R1, revised November 6, 2013.

(3) For all SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), and SA227-TT airplanes: Do a detailed visual inspection of the F.S. 69.31 front pressure bulkhead following paragraphs A. through E. of the Accomplishment Instructions in M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Service Bulletin 227-53-011 R1, revised November 6, 2013.

(4) For all SA227-CC and SA227-DC (C-26B) airplanes: Do a detailed visual inspection of the F.S. 69.31 front pressure bulkhead following paragraphs A. through E. of the Accomplishment Instructions in M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Commuter Category Service Bulletin CC7-53-007 R1, revised November 6, 2013.

Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

Operators who had the initial inspection and resulting repairs accomplished using procedures different from the M7 Aerospace LLC service information required by this AD action may apply for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) following the instructions in paragraph (m) of this AD.

(h) Bulkhead Inspection Compliance Times

(1) Initially do the inspections for crack damage required by paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), or (g)(4) of this AD, as applicable, using the compliance times specified below:

(i) For airplanes with 30,000 or more hours TIS, perform the inspection within the next 150 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD;

(ii) For airplanes with at least 25,000 but less than 30,000 hours TIS, perform the inspection within the next 300 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD;

(iii) For airplanes with at least 20,000 but less than 25,000 hours TIS, perform the inspection within the next 450 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD;

(iv) For airplanes with at least 11,000 but less than 20,000 hours TIS, perform the inspection within the next 600 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD; or

(v) For airplanes with less than 11,000 hours TIS, perform the inspection before or upon accumulating 11,000 hours TIS or within the next 600 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(2) After the initial inspection specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, to include all subparagraphs, repetitively thereafter do the inspections required in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), or (g)(4) of this AD, as applicable, at intervals not to exceed 1,000 hours TIS.

(i) Reporting Requirement for All Airplanes

If any cracks or other damage is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), or (g)(4) of this AD, before further flight, report all damage to M7 Aerospace LLC using the contact information and reporting criteria specified in paragraph F. of the Accomplishment Instructions in the service information listed in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(4) of this AD, as applicable:

If any damage is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), or (g)(4) of this AD, before further flight, repair the damage following paragraph G. of the Accomplishment Instructions in the service information listed in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(4) of this AD, as applicable. The repair scheme provided will be based on the damage reports submitted per paragraph (i) of this AD.

(k) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service Information

This AD allows credit for the initial inspection and any resulting actions required in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4), (i), and (j) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, if done before the effective date of this AD following the procedures specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information listed in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD:

A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO” or “Office”) is convening a forum to discuss implementation of title I of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (“PLTIA”). The PLTIA amends the patent laws to implement the provisions of the 1999 Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs (“Hague Agreement”) and is to take effect on the entry into force of the Hague Agreement with respect to the United States. On November 29, 2013, the Office published a proposed rule in the Federal Register proposing changes to the rules of practice to implement title I of the PLTIA and seeking written comments on the proposals. The forum is an additional way for the public to learn about the Office's proposals in advance of the written comment deadline.

DATES:

Event: The USPTO will hold a forum in Alexandria, Virginia, on January 14, 2014, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), and ending at 12:00 p.m. EST.

Registration: Registration for the forum is requested by December 31, 2013.

Registration: Registration is required. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited. There is no fee to register for the forum, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Registration on the day of the event will be permitted on a space-available basis beginning 30 minutes before the event.

To register, please go to: https://www.SignUp4.net/Public/ap.aspx?EID=610J10E and provide the requested information. Each attendee, even if from the same organization, must register separately. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please inform the contact person identified below.

The USPTO plans to make the forum event available via Web cast. Web cast information will be available on the USPTO's Internet Web site before the event.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Gerk, by telephone at 571-272-9300, or by electronic mail message at David.Gerk@uspto.gov, or Boris Milef, by telephone at 571-272-3288, or by electronic mail message at Boris.Milef@uspto.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose: This document is to announce that a forum will be convened by the Office to discuss the proposed changes to the Office's rules of practice in order to implement title I of the PLTIA. See Changes To Implement the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs, 78 FR 71870 (Nov. 29, 2013). Public comments will not be solicited for the forum. However, written comments to the proposed rules can be submitted on or before January 28, 2014, as set forth in the Office's notice of proposed rulemaking. While public attendees may have the opportunity to ask questions, group consensus advice will not be sought. Additional details regarding specific topics for the forum will be made available on the Office's Web site.

Background: The Hague Agreement provides that an applicant may apply for design protection in all member countries and with intergovernmental organizations by filing a single, standardized international design application in a single language. Title I of the PLTIA amends title 35 to implement the provisions of the Hague Agreement and is to take effect on the entry into force of the Hague Agreement with respect to the United States. For the forum, the Office intends to provide information regarding the proposed rule changes to implement the PLTIA. Additional information concerning the proposed rules and the Hague Agreement, and any updates concerning the forum, can be found on the Office's Web site, www.uspto.gov.

Dated: December 19, 2013. Margaret A. Focarino,Commissioner for Patents, performing the functions and duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.[FR Doc. 2013-30785 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510-16-PENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY40 CFR Part 52[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0528; FRL—9904-67—Region 6]Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Standard Permit for Oil and Gas Facilities and Standard Permit ApplicabilityAGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on September 20, 1995; April 19, 1996; July 22, 1998; and September 11, 2000. These revisions to the Texas SIP establish the Standard Permit for Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities. EPA also proposes to approve non-substantive revisions to the Texas Standard Permit SIP rules relating to applicability, submitted on February 1, 2006, and March 11, 2011. EPA proposes to find that these revisions to the Texas SIP comply with the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA) and EPA regulations and are consistent with EPA policies. EPA is proposing these actions under section 110 of the Act.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before January 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0528, by one of the following methods:

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0528. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through http://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means that EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment along with any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665-7253.

The State submittal related to this SIP revision, and which is part of the EPA docket, is also available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by appointment:

The State submittals, which are part of the EPA docket, are also available for public inspection at the State Air Agency during official business hours by appointment: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

Throughout this document, the following terms have the meanings described below:

• “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.

• “Act” and “CAA” means Clean Air Act.

• “40 CFR” means Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations—Protection of the Environment.

• “SIP” means State Implementation Plan as established under section 110 of the Act.

• “NSR” means new source review, a phrase intended to encompass the statutory and regulatory programs that regulate the construction and modification of stationary sources as provided under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), CAA Title I, parts C and D, and 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.166.

• “Minor NSR” means NSR established under section 110 of the Act and 40 CFR 51.160.

• “NNSR” means nonattainment NSR established under Title I, section 110 and part D of the Act and 40 CFR 51.165.

• “PSD” means prevention of significant deterioration of air quality established under Title I, section 110 and part C of the Act and 40 CFR 51.166.

• “Major NSR” means any new or modified source that is subject to NNSR and/or PSD.

• “TSD” means the Technical Support Document for this action.

• “NAAQS” means national ambient air quality standards promulgated under section 109 of that Act and 40 CFR part 50.

• “TCEQ” means “Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.”

Table of ContentsI. What action is EPA proposing?II. What has the State submitted?III. EPA's EvaluationIV. Proposed ActionV. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsI. What action is EPA proposing?

EPA is proposing to approve four submittals from the State of Texas as revisions to the Texas New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) that incorporate the Standard Permit for Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities (hereafter referred to as the “Oil and Gas Standard Permit”). Texas initially submitted the Standard Permit provisions on September 20, 1995, and submitted subsequent revisions to those provisions on April 19, 1996; July 22, 1998; and September 11; 2000. We also are proposing to approve submittals from the State of Texas as a revision to the NSR SIP that contain non-substantive changes to the applicability provisions of the Standard Permits SIP permitting program. Texas submitted revisions to the Standard Permit applicability provisions on February 1, 2006 and resubmitted them on March 11, 2011.

We have evaluated the SIP submissions for whether they meet the Act and 40 CFR part 51, and are consistent with EPA's interpretation of the relevant provisions. Based upon our evaluation, EPA has concluded that the SIP revision submittals for the Oil and Gas Standard Permit and the non-substantive revisions to the Standard Permit applicability provisions meet the applicable requirements of the Act and 40 CFR part 51. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the provisions of the submittals relating to the Oil and Gas Standard Permit SIP revisions and to the Standard Permit applicability provisions. EPA is proposing this action under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

II. What has the State submitted?A. Submittals Relating to the Oil and Gas Standard Permit

The TCEQ has developed and submitted the Oil and Gas Standard Permit as a revision to the Texas Minor NSR permit program. The Standard Permit was initially developed by TCEQ in 1995, and TCEQ has adopted subsequent amendments and submitted these as revisions to the Texas SIP since that time. As discussed in Section I of this rulemaking, EPA is proposing approval of the Oil and Gas Standard Permit—from the date of the initial submittal, dated September 20, 1995, through the September 11, 2000 SIP revision. This Section contains a brief summary of each of the SIP revisions pertaining to the Oil and Gas Standard Permit that is subject to our proposed approval.

i. September 20, 1995 SIP Submittal

On July 26, 1995, the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) 1 adopted revisions to the state regulations to establish the Oil and Gas Standard Permit. The Standard Permit was adopted at Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code (30 TAC) Chapter 116.617(3). Note that the September 20, 1995 SIP submittal contained additional, severable, revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, which are not addressed as part of this rulemaking.

1 TNRCC is the predecessor agency of the TCEQ.

ii. April 19, 1996 SIP Submittal

On March 27, 1996, the TNRCC adopted amendments to the state regulations to delete 30 TAC 116.617(3)—Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities and move the Standard Permit to 30 TAC 116.620. The Standard Permit previously contained in 30 TAC 116.617(3) was moved and renumbered to conform these sections to Texas Register style conventions and to allow ease in revising the section in the future. Note that the April 19, 1996 SIP submittal contained additional, severable, revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, which are not addressed as part of this rulemaking.

iii. July 22, 1998 SIP Submittal

On June 17, 1998, the TNRCC adopted amendments to the state regulations that included amendments to 30 TAC 116.620. These revisions added a requirement that sources subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) show compliance with Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, and also made non-substantive changes. Note that the July 22, 1998 SIP submittal contained additional, severable, revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, which are not addressed as part of this rulemaking.

iv. September 11, 2000 SIP Submittal

On August 9, 2000, the TNRCC adopted amendments to the state regulations that included amendments to 30 TAC 116.620. These revisions made non-substantive changes. Note that the September 11, 2000 SIP submittal contained additional, severable, revisions to 30 TAC Chapters 101 and 116, which are not addressed as part of this rulemaking.

On January 11, 2006, the TCEQ adopted revisions to the Standard Permit SIP rules, which made non-substantive changes to the applicability provisions in 30 TAC 116.610(a) and (b). Note that the February 1, 2006 SIP submittal contained additional, severable, revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, which are not addressed as part of this rulemaking.

ii. March 11, 2011 SIP Submittal

On March 11, 2011, the same changes that were submitted on February 1, 2006, to 30 TAC 116.610(a) and (b) were resubmitted. Note that the March 11, 2011 SIP submittal contained additional, severable, revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, which are not addressed as part of this rulemaking.

Table 1—Summary of Pending SIP Submittals Addressed in This ActionDate submitted to EPADate adopted by StateDate effective as State ruleSections related to standard permit for installation and/or modification of oil

and gas facilities

9/20/19957/26/19959/1/1995Submittal of new Section 116.617(3).4/19/19963/27/19964/19/1996Deletion of Section 116.617(3); Standard Permit moved and renumbered to new Section 116.620 to conform to Texas Register style conventions.7/22/19986/17/19987/8/1998Revisions to Section 116.620.9/11/20008/9/20009/4/2000Revisions to Section 116.620.02/01/200601/11/200602/01/2006Revisions to Section 116.610.03/11/201101/11/200602/01/2006Revisions to Section 116.610.Table 2—Summary of the Individual Revisions to Each Section EvaluatedSection—titleDate

submitted

to EPA

Date adopted by StateDate effective as State ruleComments30 TAC Chapter 116—Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or ModificationSubchapter F—Standard PermitsSection 116.610—Standard Permit Applicability02/01/0601/11/0602/01/06• Non-substantive changes to 116.610(a).

• Non-substantive changes to 116.610(b).

03/11/1101/11/0602/01/06Resubmittal of the January 11, 2006 adopted changes to 116.610(a) and (b).Section 116.617—Standard Permit List9/20/19957/26/19959/1/1995Initial adoption of Standard Permit at 116.617(3).4/19/19963/27/19964/19/1996Deletion of 116.617(3).Section 116.620—Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities4/19/19963/27/19964/19/1996Initial adoption of this section; Standard Permit moved from 116.617(3).7/22/19986/17/19987/8/1998• 116.620(a)(4) removed reference to standard exemption (SE) 6 and replaced with reference to PBR 106.512.• 116.620(a)(13) was updated to include reference to case-by-case MACT review under Subchapter C.• 116.620(a)(14) was subdivided into sections 116.620(a)(14)-(15).• 116.620(a)(16) was added to require sources subject to NESHAPs to show compliance with MACT standards.• 116.620(a)(15)-(16) were renumbered to (17) and (18).• 116.620(b)(1) removed reference to SE 83 and replaced with reference to PBR 106.476.• 116.620(c)(1)(A) uses EPA acronym in place of formal name.• 116.620(c)(1)(J) adds “Permits” to division name.• 116.620(c)(2)(J) adds “Permits” to division name.• 116.620(d)(3) changes office name.• 116.620(e)(1) changes office name and removes “his or her designated representative”.9/11/20008/9/20009/4/2000• 116.620(a)(4) eliminated the parenthetical reference to the former standard exemption 6.• 116.620(a)(11) eliminated parentheses around H2S.• 116.620(b)(1) eliminated the parenthetical reference to previous SE 83.• 116.620(b)(E) eliminated reference to “exemptions” and now refers to “permits by rule” consistent with the other rule language updates.• 116.620(c)(1)(J) changes office name.C. Overview of the Oil and Gas Standard Permit

EPA approved Texas' general regulations for Standard Permits in 30 TAC Subchapter F of 30 TAC Chapter 116 on November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64543) as meeting the federal requirements for Minor NSR.2 The November 14, 2003, action describes how those rules meet EPA's requirements for new minor sources and minor modifications. A Standard Permit is a minor NSR permit that is adopted under Chapter 116, Subchapter F. Subchapter F provides an alternative process for approving the construction of certain categories of new and modified sources for which TCEQ has adopted a Standard Permit. These provisions provide for a streamlined minor NSR mechanism for authorizing the construction of certain sources within source categories for which TCEQ has adopted a Standard Permit. A Standard Permit is not available to a facility or group of facilities that undergo a change that constitutes a new major source or major modification under Title I of the Act, part C (Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality) or part D (Nonattainment Review). Such major source or major modification must comply with the applicable permitting requirements under Chapter 116, Subchapter B, which meet the new source review requirements in Title I, part C or part D of the Act. A facility that qualifies for a minor NSR Standard Permit must also comply with all applicable provisions of section 111 of the Act (NSPS) and section 112 of the Act (NESHAP). Furthermore, a facility that qualifies for a minor NSR Standard Permit must comply with all rules and regulations of TCEQ.

2 EPA did not approve the Standard Permit for Installation and/or Modification of Oil and Gas Facilities in the November 14, 2003, action as part of the Texas SIP (68 FR 64543, at 64547).

A Standard Permit is not a case-by-case Minor NSR SIP permit, but rather it is a streamlined mechanism with all permitting requirements for construction and operation of a certain source category. Therefore, each Standard Permit approved in a SIP should contain all terms and conditions on the face of it (combined with the SIP general requirements), and it should not be used to address site-specific determinations.

The Oil and Gas Standard Permit was developed to provide a streamlined permitting process for oil and gas facilities. The Standard Permit contained in 30 TAC 116.620 simplifies the permit review process for these facilities by establishing standardized conditions applicable to the oil and gas industry, which help to streamline the agency review process and allow more rapid approval than would be possible under case-by-case minor NSR review permitting.

The standardized conditions contained in the Oil and Gas Standard Permit include emission specifications, control requirements, inspection requirements, approved test methods provisions, and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. In addition, a source applying for authorization under 30 TAC 116.620 must also meet the applicable requirements contained in the other Sections under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter F—Standard Permits, which include registration and fee requirements and general permit conditions for Standard Permits. In accordance with 30 TAC 116.610(b), the Oil and Gas Standard Permit is limited to Minor NSR and cannot be used to authorize a project that constitutes a new major stationary source or major modification. Therefore, as discussed in the following section, the Oil and Gas Standard Permit provisions are evaluated with respect to the applicable Minor NSR requirements.

As previously mentioned, the Oil and Gas Standard Permit includes standardized conditions for the emission units located at oil and gas facilities that may be authorized by the Standard Permit. The types of emission units that may be authorized by the Standard Permit are the following:

In order for one of the previously-listed emission units to be authorized by the Standard Permit, that unit must meet the applicable unit-specific standardized conditions, and, the oil and gas facility as a whole must meet any applicable site-wide standardized conditions contained in the Standard Permit. If a proposed project at an oil and gas facility includes any emission units that are not explicitly covered by the Oil and Gas Standard Permit, the permit applicant would turn to another type of Standard Permit authorization or a permit-by-rule (PBR) or, if necessary, case-by-case NSR permitting for authorization. For example, the Oil and Gas Standard Permit does not provide authorization for cooling towers. Therefore, an oil and gas facility with a cooling tower on-site would not be able to use the Oil and Gas Standard Permit to authorize the emissions from that emission unit, but could rely upon the separate cooling tower SP or PBR.3 Any other emission units not specifically authorized under the Oil and Gas Standard Permit also could obtain authorization through either a SP or PBR that explicitly addresses it or obtain a case-by-case minor NSR permit. In addition to cooling towers, other examples of emission units that may be found at oil and gas facilities that are not covered by the Oil & Gas Standard Permit include, but are not limited to, truck loading emissions, heat exchangers, amine sweetening units, and sulfur recovery units. If EPA discovers evidence to support the determination that the TCEQ were found to be misapplying the Oil and Gas Standard Permit or a permittee obtained authorization under this Standard Permit for emission units that are outside the scope of 116.620, then EPA or the public could address this implementation failure on a permit specific basis or other CAA remedy mechanism, such as a finding of failure to implement.

3 For example, cooling towers, including those located at oil and gas facilities, that meet all of the applicable PBR requirements may be authorized under the SIP-approved Cooling-Water Unit PBR found at 30 TAC 116.371.

III. EPA's Evaluation

The Act at Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop and submit to EPA for approval into the state SIP, preconstruction review and permitting programs applicable to certain new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants for attainment and nonattainment areas that cover both major and minor new sources and modifications, collectively referred to as the NSR SIP. The CAA NSR SIP program is composed of three separate programs: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that meet the NAAQS—“attainment areas”—as well as areas where there is insufficient information to determine if the area meets the NAAQS—“unclassifiable areas.” The NNSR SIP program is established in part D of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS—“nonattainment areas.” The Minor NSR SIP program addresses construction or modification activities that do not emit, or have the potential to emit, beyond certain major source/major modification thresholds and thus do not qualify as “major” and applies regardless of the designation of the area in which a source is located. Any submitted SIP revision, including revisions to a Minor NSR program, must meet the applicable requirements for SIP elements in section 110 of the Act, and be consistent with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

EPA regulations governing the criteria that states must satisfy for EPA approval of the NSR programs as part of the SIP are contained in 40 CFR Sections 51.160-51.166. Regulations specific to Minor NSR programs are contained in 40 CFR Section 51.160-51.164. The TCEQ has developed the Oil and Gas Standard Permit as a component of the Texas Minor NSR program; therefore we will evaluate the Standard Permit as submitted on September 20, 1995; April 19, 1996; July 22, 1998; and September 11, 2000, against the federal requirements for Minor NSR programs.

40 CFR Section 51.160 establishes the requirements that all Minor NSR programs must meet. We will address these specific requirements in Section III.A. 40 CFR Section 51.161 establishes the public notice requirements for Minor NSR programs. We will address the public notice requirements more fully in Section III.B. Section 51.160-51.164 requires that a SIP revision demonstrate that the adopted rules will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. We will address the specific requirements for permitting activities that ensure attainment more fully in Section III.C.

A. EPA's Evaluation of Requirements for Minor NSR

EPA's regulations addressing a Minor NSR program as part of a state's SIP are included at 40 CFR 51.160, which applies to all programs under Title I of the CAA. These provisions of a Minor NSR program must provide that the permitting authority will not permit the construction of a facility or modification that will cause a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. To accomplish this goal, the state's Minor NSR program must include the means by which the state agency will review and take final action on proposed new construction or modification to be protective of the control strategy and NAAQS. As stated in 40 CFR 51.160, all NSR programs, including the Minor NSR program, must include legally enforceable 4 procedures that meet the following requirements:

4 A requirement is “legally enforceable” if some authority has the right to enforce the restriction. 67 FR 80186, at 80190.

• Provide for the submission, by the owner or operator of the building, facility, structure or installation to be constructed or modified of such information on the nature and amounts of emissions to be emitted by it or emitted by associated mobile sources; and the design, construction and operation of such facility, building, structure, or installation as may be necessary to allow the permitting authority to make a determination on approvability. 40 CFR 51.160(c).

• The Minor NSR program must provide that approval of any construction or modification must not affect the responsibility of the owner or operator to comply with applicable portions of the control strategy. 40 CFR 51.160(d).

• The Minor NSR program must include procedures to identify the types and sizes of facilities, buildings, structures, or installations which will be subject to review. The Minor NSR program must also discuss the basis for determining which facilities will be subject to review. 40 CFR 51.160(e).

• The Minor NSR program must also discuss the air quality data and the dispersion or other air quality modeling used to meet the NSR requirements. 40 CFR 51.160(f).

The SIP submittals being evaluated as part of this rulemaking are for a Standard Permit that is submitted as part of Texas's Minor NSR program; therefore, the provisions from the Oil and Gas Standard Permit are evaluated against the federal requirements for Minor NSR and in conjunction with the existing SIP-approved provisions of the Standard Permitting Program found in 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter F—Standard Permits that provides the basic requirements that a facility must meet to qualify for a Standard Permit.

Based on our evaluation, we propose to find that the Oil and Gas Standard Permit provisions found in 30 TAC 116.620 provide for the necessary procedures and applicable requirements that are required for Minor NSR programs. Our evaluation is summarized below with additional details regarding our evaluation available in the TSD accompanying this rulemaking.

In accordance with 30 TAC 116.611, sources seeking authorization via the Oil and Gas Standard Permit are required to submit a Standard Permit registration to TCEQ, which is to include information regarding the proposed project to be authorized (e.g., emission estimates, description of project and related process, description of equipment being installed). 30 TAC 116.615 includes general conditions that must be met by sources authorized via a Standard Permit, including the Oil and Gas Standard Permit. These general conditions specifically require that sources authorized under a Standard Permit comply with all “rules, regulations, and orders of the commission issued in conformity with the [Texas Clean Air Act].” See 30 TAC 116.615(10). In the case where more than one state or federal rule of regulation or permit condition are applicable, the source must comply with the most stringent requirement or limit. See 30 TAC 116.615(10). Therefore, the conditions of the Standard Permit in no way supersede or relax other applicable state or federal requirements. In addition, the provisions found in the Oil and Gas Standard Permit under 30 TAC 116.620 also require that sources authorized under the Standard Permit submit appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with state and federal provisions, including PSD, NNSR, NSPS, and NESHAP. The Standard Permit also requires that new or increased emissions authorized under the permit shall not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS and references that engineering judgment and/or air dispersion modeling may be used to demonstrate NAAQS compliance for the specific minor construction project. See 30 TAC 116.620(a)(13)-(17). Regarding testing, recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring provisions, the Oil and Gas Standard Permit contains provisions that include these requirements for the emission sources that can be authorized under the Standard Permit. See 30 TAC 116.620(c)-(e). As discussed in Section I.E of this rulemaking and the accompanying TSD, the Oil and Gas Standard Permit may be used to authorize only those emission sources that are specifically covered by the Standard Permit provisions. Therefore, the Standard Permit contains testing, recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring provisions for the covered emission sources as necessary to ensure compliance with applicable requirements for those covered sources.

Based on our evaluation of the proposed provisions found in the Standard Permit, in conjunction with the underlying SIP-approved provisions of the Texas Standard Permitting Program found in Chapter 116, Subchapter F, we propose to find that the Oil and Gas Standard Permit meets the requirements that are applicable to Minor NSR.

B. EPA's Evaluation of Public Availability of Information Requirements for Minor NSR

Federal requirements for public notice of Minor NSR programs are found at 40 CFR 51.160 and 51.161. The procedures for a Minor NSR program in 40 CFR 51.160 require an opportunity for public comment on information submitted by the permit applicant and on the permitting authority's analysis of the application, submitted materials and proposed approval or disapproval of the permit application. EPA further explains at 40 CFR 51.161(b) that opportunity for public comment is, at a minimum, the availability for public inspection in at least one location in the area affected of the information submitted by the owner/operator and of the permitting authority's analysis of the effect on air quality; a 30-day period for submittal of public comment; and a notice by prominent advertisement in the area affected of the location where the public can see the submitted materials and analysis. The SIP submittals being evaluated as part of this rulemaking are for a Standard Permit; therefore, the provisions from the Oil and Gas Standard Permit are evaluated against the federal requirements regarding public notice in conjunction with the existing SIP-approved provisions of the Standard Permits Program found in 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter F—Standard Permits that provides the basic requirements that a facility must meet to qualify for a Standard Permit, including public participation requirements. See 30 TAC 116.603.

Based on our evaluation, we propose to find that the SIP's general provisions for all Standard Permits found at 30 TAC 116.603 apply to the Oil and Gas Standard Permit. These general provisions were found to meet EPA's requirements for public participation for minor NSR permits and in some cases are more stringent. (73 FR 53716, September 17, 2008). As required by 30 TAC 116.603, a Standard Permit must comply with the following public notice requirements:

• Notice of a proposed Standard Permit is required to be published in the Texas Register, the commission's publicly accessible electronic media, and in a daily or weekly newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the activity that is subject to the proposed permit. If the proposed standard permit will have statewide applicability, notice will be published in the daily newspaper of largest general circulation within each of the following metropolitan areas: Austin, Dallas, and Houston and any other regional newspapers designated by the executive director on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the commission will publish notice in the Texas Register and issue a press release;

• The notice must provide for a public comment period on the proposed Standard Permit of at least 30 days;

• A public meeting is required to be held to provide an additional opportunity for public comment;

• Written responses must be prepared to all public comments received from the public related to the issuance of a Standard Permit, which will be made available to the public;

• Notice of the final action on the proposed Standard Permit is required to be published in the Texas Register, including the text of the response to comments; and

• Copies of the final issued Standard Permit along with the response to public comments received on the draft permit are required to be made available at the TCEQ Austin office and appropriate TCEQ regional offices.

Subsequent amendments or revocation of an issued Standard Permit must also meet the public notice procedures contained in Section 603, as required by 30 TAC 116.605.

Based on our evaluation of the proposed provisions found in the Oil & Gas Standard Permit, as well as the underlying SIP-approved provisions of the Texas Standard Permitting Program found in Chapter 116, Subchapter F, we propose to find that the Oil and Gas Standard Permit meets the federal public notice requirements that are applicable to Minor NSR for those emission sources that are specifically covered by the Standard Permit provisions. In addition, Texas has provided documentation within their SIP revision submittals to document that the SIP-approved public notice process was followed consistent with the 30 TAC 116.603 requirements when the Oil and Gas Standard Permit was initially issued and subsequently amended. The SIP submittals are available in the docket accompanying this rulemaking.

C. EPA's Evaluation of the Oil and Gas Standard Permit With Respect to Attainment, Reasonable Further Progress, and Other Applicable Requirements of the Act

Under Section 110(l), the regulations submitted as SIP revisions establishing the Oil and Gas Standard Permit must meet the procedural requirements of Section 110(l) by demonstrating that the State followed all necessary procedural requirements such as providing reasonable notice and public hearing of the SIP revision. Additionally, the SIP revision must demonstrate that the adopted rules will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. We propose to find that the TCEQ satisfied all procedural requirements pursuant to Section 110(l) as detailed in our accompanying TSD.

A Minor NSR program is a requirement of the CAA and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. As discussed in this proposed action and in the accompanying TSD, EPA proposes that the Oil and Gas Standard Permit as submitted on September 20, 1995, and revised through SIP submittals dated April 19, 1996; July 22, 1998; and September 11, 2000, satisfies the minimum requirements for a Minor NSR program, including adequate provisions for legal enforceability and public participation to ensure protection of the control strategy and any applicable NAAQS. The Oil and Gas Standard Permit also contains sufficient safeguards to prevent circumvention of Major NSR permitting requirements. Therefore, we propose that the Oil and Gas Standard Permit is protective of the NAAQS and applicable control strategy requirements and satisfies the requirements of 110(l) of the Act.

D. Summary of EPA's Evaluation of the Oil and Gas Standard Permit

For the reasons presented above, EPA proposes to find that the Oil and Gas Standard Permit, as submitted on September 20, 1995, and revisions submitted on April 19, 1996; July 22, 1998; and September 11, 2000, is limited to Minor NSR. EPA proposes to find that the program satisfies the federal requirements for Minor NSR and contains sufficient enforceable safeguards to ensure that the NAAQS and applicable control strategies are protected.

E. Summary of EPA's Evaluation of the Revisions to the Standard Permit Applicability Provisions

On February 1, 2006, and March 11, 2011, the State of Texas submitted revisions to the Standard Permit SIP rules, which made non-substantive changes to the applicability provisions in 30 TAC 116.610(a) and (b). The revisions include changes such as defining acronyms, changing capitalization, rephrasing, and updating and deleting cross-references as appropriate due to revisions to other sections. EPA proposes to approve the revisions to 30 TAC 116.610(a) and (b) because these changes are ministerial and non-substantive in nature.

IV. Proposed Action

We are proposing to approve the submittals for a Minor NSR Oil and Gas Standard Permit submitted September 20, 1995; April 19, 1996; July 22, 1998; and September 11, 2000. We also are proposing to approve the submittals for the Standard Permit SIP rules making non-substantive changes to the Standard Permit applicability provisions in 30 TAC 116.610(a) and (b) as submitted February 1, 2006, and resubmitted March 11, 2011. EPA is proposing this action in accordance with section 110 of the Act.

After review and consideration of public comments, we will take final action on the SIP revisions that are identified herein.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this notice merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire. This SIP revision establishes carbon monoxide (CO) limited maintenance plans for the City of Manchester, New Hampshire and the City of Nashua, New Hampshire. As part of its limited maintenance plan, New Hampshire will continue year-round CO monitoring at the Londonderry Moose Hill station in Londonderry, New Hampshire with triggers to reestablish CO monitoring sites in Manchester and Nashua if elevated CO levels are recorded in Londonderry. Future carbon monoxide transportation conformity evaluations for Manchester and Nashua would for the length of their limited maintenance plans be considered to satisfy the regional emissions analysis and “budget test” requirements. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES:

Written comments must be received on or before January 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0661 by one of the following methods:

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0661. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.

In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency; Air Resources Division, Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.

The City of Manchester, New Hampshire (Manchester) and the City of Nashua, New Hampshire (Nashua) were designated nonattainment by EPA for carbon monoxide on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962) and April 11, 1980 (45 FR 24869), respectively. The current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO is 9.0 parts per million (ppm) for an 8-hour average concentration and 35 ppm for a 1-hour concentration, not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. In 1991, following passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA), both cities were designated “nonattainment” and “not classified” (November 6, 1991; 56 FR 56694) although ambient monitoring showed NAAQS attainment had been achieved by that time. In February 1999, the State of New Hampshire submitted a formal CO redesignation request and a CO maintenance plan for Manchester and Nashua. Effective January 29, 2001 (November 29, 2000; 65 FR 71060), EPA redesignated Manchester and Nashua from nonattainment to attainment for CO and approved New Hampshire's CO maintenance plan.

On May 30, 2007, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) submitted a SIP revision to EPA that contained modifications to their CO maintenance plan for the Nashua CO maintenance area. These modifications which were approved by EPA through a direct final rule (September 10, 2007; 72 FR 51564) changed the triggering mechanism by which contingency measures would be implemented in Nashua, and allowed the State to discontinue CO monitoring in the Nashua maintenance area. New Hampshire would rely on data from the CO monitor in Manchester to determine when, and if, monitoring would be reestablished in the Nashua maintenance area, and, in some circumstances, when contingency measures would be triggered in the Nashua maintenance area. At the time of the SIP revision approval, CO concentrations measured in Nashua were below the NAAQS for nearly 20 years, and maximum measured concentrations were less than 50% of the 9 parts per million 8-hour CO standard.

On August 1, 2012, the NH DES submitted a limited maintenance plan SIP revision for the remainder of Manchester and Nashua's second ten-year maintenance plans (January 29, 2011 to January 29, 2021). The revision also requests discontinuance of CO monitoring in Manchester to be replaced by a CO monitoring station in Londonderry, New Hampshire (mid-way between Manchester and Nashua). These revisions are the subject of today's notice of proposed rulemaking.

Under the CO limited maintenance plan New Hampshire would continue to implement strategies that have helped reduce CO emissions in Manchester and Nashua. These strategies include: New Hampshire's Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance On Board Diagnostic (OBD II) program; Vehicle Miles Travel reductions (implement congestion and emission reduction programs such as traffic signal coordination, increased mass transit, RideShare, anti-idling and other traffic mitigation measures); and Low Emissions Vehicles Standards. New Hampshire has also committed to continuing CO monitoring in Londonderry with triggers to reestablish CO monitoring in Manchester and Nashua. In the event monitored carbon monoxide concentrations reach or exceed the limited maintenance eligibility criteria of 7.65 parts per million, then the area would revert to a full maintenance plan.

II. Criteria for Limited Maintenance Plan DesignationA. EPA Guidance

For the Manchester and Nashua areas, NH DES's SIP revision uses EPA's limited maintenance plan approach, as detailed in the EPA guidance memorandum, “Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas” from Joseph Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards (OAQPS), dated October 6, 1995, (the Paisie Memorandum, [a copy of which is included in the Docket as part of the States' SIP revision]). Pursuant to this approach EPA will consider the maintenance demonstration satisfied for “not classified” areas if the monitoring data show the design value is at or below 7.65 parts per million, or 85 percent of the level of the 8-hour carbon monoxide NAAQS. The design value must be based on eight consecutive quarters of data. For such areas, there is no requirement to project emissions of air quality over the maintenance period. EPA believes if the area begins the maintenance period at, or below, 85 percent of the CO 8 hour NAAQS, the applicability of “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” (PSD), the control measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures (including the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program emission standards, limiting CO emissions), should provide adequate assurance of maintenance over the initial 10-year maintenance period. In addition, the design value for the area must continue to be at or below 7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA action on the redesignation.

The 8-hour CO design values for each of New Hampshire's CO maintenance areas are summarized in Table 1 below. In all cases, 8-hour design values are significantly less than the 7.65 ppm threshold specified in EPA guidance, thus making each area potentially eligible for the limited maintenance plan option.

Table 1—8-hour Design Values (ppm) by Year for Manchester and NashuaYearManchester

Consistent with EPA's guidance for limited maintenance plans, the State developed an attainment emissions inventory to identify the level of emissions in Hillsborough County, which includes Manchester and Nashua, sufficient to attain the NAAQS. (See Table 2 below.) The State also developed an attainment emissions inventory identifying the level of emissions statewide associated with attaining and maintaining the CO NAAQS. (See Table 3 below.) These inventories are consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on emissions inventories for nonattainment areas available at the time, and they document a downward trend in CO emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data achieving attainment and continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS.

The maintenance demonstration requirement is considered to be satisfied if the monitoring data show that the area is meeting the air quality criteria for limited maintenance areas (7.65 ppm or 85% of the CO NAAQS). There is no requirement to project emissions over the maintenance period. The EPA believes since the area is below 85 percent of exceedance levels, the air quality along with the continued applicability of PSD requirements, any control measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures, should provide adequate assurance of maintenance over the remainder of the 10-year maintenance period.

When EPA approves a limited maintenance plan, EPA is concluding that an emissions budget may be treated as essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result.

D. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

In its SIP revision, NH DES commits to continue CO monitoring year-round at the Londonderry Moose Hill station in Londonderry. NH DES worked closely with EPA to carefully select this site due to its central proximity to Manchester and Nashua. The Londonderry Moose Hill Station came online on January 1, 2011 as a National Core (NCore) multi-pollutant monitoring station measuring a wide variety of pollutants. The Londonderry station measures fine particulate (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides, ozone, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide, in addition to wind speed, wind direction, and relative humidity.

III. Contingency Measures

Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that a maintenance plan include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. Under section 175A(d), contingency measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered by a specified event. Previously implemented contingency measures and emissions reductions strategies in New Hampshire have proven successful, and will be continued through the maintenance period. These include: Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M); vehicle miles traveled reductions; and other emissions reduction programs.

Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)—EPA approved New Hampshire's I/M program on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5292). In its CO maintenance plan SIP revision, NH DES commits to continued implementation of this program.

Other emissions reductions programs—NH DES and local MPOs are actively promoting low emissions vehicles and emissions reductions strategies such as anti-idling programs and park & ride lot construction as part of their long range transportation plans.

IV. State Commitments

New Hampshire will monitor CO levels using the Londonderry Moose Hill station and emissions inventories. Because New Hampshire proposes to discontinue monitoring CO in Manchester, it will adopt a more stringent contingency threshold or “trigger” than indicated in the 2007 SIP revision. In the event the second highest CO concentration in any calendar year monitored in Londonderry reaches 50 percent of the Federal 1-hour or 8-hour NAAQS for CO, New Hampshire will, within six months of recording such concentrations, reestablish the CO monitoring site in Manchester consistent with EPA siting criteria, and resume analyzing and reporting those data. If the reestablished Manchester CO monitor measures a violation of the either the Federal 1-hour or 8-hour NAAQS for CO, contingency measures will be implemented in Manchester and Nashua. Contingency measures in Nashua would cease once a reestablished CO monitor in Nashua shows that the area is in attainment of the CO standard.

V. Conformity

Section 176(c) of the Act defines transportation conformity as conformity to the SIP's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards. The Act further defines transportation conformity to mean that no Federal transportation activity will: (1) Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area; (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area. The Federal Transportation Conformity Rule, 40 CFR part 93 subpart A, sets forth the criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects which are developed, funded or approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and by metropolitan planning organizations or other recipients of funds under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). The transportation conformity rule applies within all nonattainment and maintenance areas. As prescribed by the transportation conformity rule, once an area has an applicable State Implementation Plan with motor vehicle emissions budgets, the expected emissions from planned transportation activities must be consistent with (“conform to”) such established budgets for that area.

According to EPA's guidance on limited maintenance plans, in the case of the Manchester and Nashua New Hampshire CO limited maintenance plan areas, the emissions budgets may be treated as essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period as long as the area continues to meet the limited maintenance criteria, because there is no reason to expect that these areas will experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result. In other words, emissions from on-road transportation sources need not be capped for the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to believe that emissions from such sources would increase to a level that would threaten the air quality in this area for the duration of this maintenance period. Therefore, for limited maintenance plan CO maintenance areas, all Federal actions that require conformity determinations under the transportation conformity rule are considered to satisfy the regional emissions analysis and “budget test” requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 of the rule.

Since limited maintenance plan areas are still maintenance areas, however, transportation conformity determinations are still required for transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such determinations, transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects must still demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR part 108) and must meet the criteria for consultation and Transportation Control Measure (TCM) implementation in the conformity rule (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively). In addition, projects in limited maintenance areas will still be required to meet the criteria for CO hot spot analyses to satisfy “project level” conformity determinations (40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123) which must incorporate the latest planning assumptions and models that are available. All aspects of transportation conformity (with the exception of satisfying the emission budget test) will still be required.

If the Manchester or Nashua CO attainment areas monitor CO concentrations at or above the limited maintenance eligibility criteria or 7.65 parts per million, then that maintenance area would no longer qualify for a limited maintenance plan and would revert to a full maintenance plan. In this event, the limited maintenance plan would remain applicable for conformity purposes only until the full maintenance plan is submitted and EPA has found its motor vehicle emissions budgets adequate for conformity purposes or EPA approves the full maintenance plan SIP revision. Any required new conformity determinations could not be made until there is an adequate budget or approved full maintenance plan. At that time, regional emissions analyses would resume as a transportation conformity criteria.

VI. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve conversion of the Manchester and Nashua current carbon monoxide maintenance plans to a limited maintenance plan for the remainder of the City of Manchester, and the City of Nashua, New Hampshire CO maintenance plans which terminate on January 29, 2021.

EPA is proposing to approve replacement of the CO air quality monitoring in Manchester with carbon monoxide monitoring at the Londonderry Moose Hill station in Londonderry, New Hampshire with triggers to reestablish CO monitoring sites in Manchester and Nashua if elevated CO levels are recorded in Londonderry.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

This document contains proposed rules that would amend the regulations regarding excepted benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Public Health Service Act. Excepted benefits are generally exempt from the health reform requirements that were added to those laws by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

DATES:

Comments are due on or before February 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments may be submitted to the Department of Labor as specified below. Any comment that is submitted will be shared with the other Departments and will also be made available to the public. Warning: Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines. No deletions, modifications, or redactions will be made to the comments received, as they are public records. Comments may be submitted anonymously.

Comments, identified by “Excepted Benefits,” may be submitted by one of the following methods:

Comments received will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov and available for public inspection at the Public Disclosure Room, N-1513, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, including any personal information provided.

Customer Service Information: Individuals interested in obtaining information from the Department of Labor concerning employment-based health coverage laws, may call the EBSA Toll-Free Hotline at 1-866-444-EBSA (3272) or visit the Department of Labor's Web site (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa). In addition, information from HHS on private health insurance for consumers can be found on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Web site (www.cms.gov/cciio) and information on health reform can be found at www.HealthCare.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 added title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), part 7 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and chapter 100 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code), providing portability and nondiscrimination provisions with respect to health coverage. These provisions of the PHS Act, ERISA, and the Code were later augmented by other consumer protection laws, including the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996,1 the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008,2 the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act,3 the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act,4 the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008,5 the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009,6 Michelle's Law,7 and the Affordable Care Act.8

1 Public Law 104-204, 110 Stat. 2944 (September 26, 1996).

2 Public Law 110-343, 122 Stat. 3881 (October 3, 2008).

3 Public Law 104-204, 110 Stat. 2935 (September 26, 1996).

4 Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-436 (October 21, 1998).

5 Public Law 110-233, 122 Stat. 881 (May 21, 2008).

6 Public Law 111-3, 123 Stat. 65 (February 4, 2009).

7 Public Law 110-381, 122 Stat. 4081 (October 9, 2008).

8 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, was enacted on March 23, 2010, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, Public Law 111-152, was enacted on March 30, 2010. (They are collectively known as the “Affordable Care Act”.)

The Affordable Care Act reorganizes, amends, and adds to the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act relating to group health plans and health insurance issuers in the group and individual markets. The term “group health plan” includes both insured and self-insured group health plans.9 Section 715(a)(1) of ERISA and section 9815(a)(1) of the Code, as added by the Affordable Care Act, incorporate the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act into ERISA and the Code to make them applicable to group health plans and health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage in connection with group health plans. The PHS Act sections incorporated by these references are sections 2701 through 2728.

9 The term “group health plan” is used in title XXVII of the PHS Act, part 7 of ERISA, and chapter 100 of the Code, and is distinct from the term “health plan,” as used in other provisions of title I of the Affordable Care Act. The term “health plan” does not include self-insured group health plans.

II. Overview of the Proposed Regulations

Sections 2722 and 2763 of the PHS Act, section 732 of ERISA, and section 9831 of the Code provide that the requirements of title XXVII of the PHS Act, part 7 of ERISA, and chapter 100 of the Code, respectively, generally do not apply to excepted benefits. Excepted benefits are described in section 2791 of the PHS Act, section 733 of ERISA, and section 9832 of the Code.

The parallel statutory provisions establish four categories of excepted benefits. The first category includes benefits that are generally not health coverage 10 (such as automobile insurance, liability insurance, workers compensation, and accidental death and dismemberment coverage). The benefits in this category are excepted in all circumstances. In contrast, the benefits in the second, third, and fourth categories are types of health coverage but are excepted only if certain conditions are met.

10 See 62 FR 16894, 16903 (Apr. 8, 1997), which states that these benefits are generally not health insurance coverage).

The second category of excepted benefits is limited excepted benefits, which may include limited scope vision or dental benefits, and benefits for long-term care, nursing home care, home health care, or community based care. Section 2791(c)(2)(C) of the PHS Act, section 733(c)(2)(C) of ERISA, and section 9832(c)(2)(C) of the Code authorize the Secretaries of HHS, Labor, and the Treasury (collectively, the Secretaries) to issue regulations establishing other, similar limited benefits as excepted benefits. The Secretaries exercised this authority previously with respect to certain health flexible spending arrangements (health FSAs).11 To be excepted under this second category, the statute provides that limited benefits must either: (1) be provided under a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance; or (2) otherwise not be an integral part of a group health plan, whether insured or self-insured.

The third category of excepted benefits, referred to as “noncoordinated excepted benefits,” includes both coverage for only a specified disease or illness (such as cancer-only policies), and hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance. These benefits are excepted only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The benefits are provided under a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance; (2) there is no coordination between the provision of such benefits and any exclusion of benefits under any group health plan maintained by the same plan sponsor; and (3) the benefits are paid with respect to any event without regard to whether benefits are provided under any group health plan maintained by the same plan sponsor.12

The fourth category of excepted benefits is supplemental excepted benefits. Such benefits must be: (1) Coverage supplemental to Medicare, coverage supplemental to the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) or to Tricare, or similar coverage that is supplemental to coverage provided under a group health plan; and (2) provided under a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance.13

These proposed regulations would amend the second category of excepted benefits, limited excepted benefits.

A. Dental and Vision Benefits

In 2004, the Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and HHS published final regulations with respect to excepted benefits (the HIPAA regulations).14 (Subsequent references to the “Departments” include all three Departments, unless the headings or context indicate otherwise.) Under the HIPAA regulations, vision and dental benefits are excepted if they are limited in scope (described as benefits, substantially all of which are for treatment of the eyes or mouth, respectively) and are either: (1) Provided under a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance; or (2) are otherwise not an integral part of a group health plan. While only insured coverage may qualify under the first test, both insured and self-insured coverage may qualify under the second test. The HIPAA regulations provided that benefits are not an integral part of a plan if participants have the right to elect not to receive coverage for the benefits, and if participants elect to receive coverage for such benefits, they pay an additional premium or contribution for it. By contrast, health FSA benefits could qualify as excepted benefits without any participant contribution under the HIPAA regulations.15

14 69 FR 78720 (Dec. 30, 2004).

15 Under paragraph (c)(3)(v) of the HIPAA regulations, benefits provided under a health FSA are only excepted for a class of participants if other group health coverage, not limited to excepted benefits, is made available for the year to the class of participants; and the arrangement is structured so that the maximum benefit payable to any participant in the class for a year does not exceed an amount specified in the regulations.

Following enactment of the Affordable Care Act, various stakeholders asked the Departments to amend the regulations in order to remove conditions for limited-scope vision and dental benefits to be treated as excepted benefits. Specifically, some employers represented that, although their vision and dental benefits complied with the pre-Affordable Care Act requirements in title XXVII of the PHS Act, part 7 of ERISA, and chapter 100 of the Code (such as the nondiscrimination and preexisting condition exclusion provisions), compliance with the Affordable Care Act provisions (including the 90-day waiting period limitation 16 and the prohibition on annual limits) 17 presented additional challenges. These employers argued that, where employers are providing such benefits on a self-insured basis and without a contribution from employees, employers should not be required to charge a nominal contribution from participants simply for the benefits to qualify as excepted benefits. In some cases, the cost of collecting the nominal contribution would be greater than the contribution itself. Moreover, they pointed out that employers providing dental and vision benefits through a separate insurance policy are not required to charge a participant any premium in order for the dental or vision benefits to be considered excepted benefits. Similarly, consumer groups argued that, if an employer offers primary group health coverage that is unaffordable to individuals, but limited-scope vision or dental coverage that is affordable, such limited-scope vision or dental coverage should qualify as excepted benefits so as not to make such individuals ineligible for the premium tax credit under section 36B of the Code for enrolling in coverage through an Affordable Insurance Exchange, or “Exchange” (also called a Health Insurance Marketplace or Marketplace).

16See PHS Act section 2708. See also proposed regulations, published on March 21, 2013, at 78 FR 17313, stating that “the Departments will consider compliance with these proposed regulations as compliance with PHS Act section 2708 at least through the end of 2014.” (78 FR at 17317).

In response to these concerns, and to level the playing field between insured and self-insured coverage, these proposed regulations would eliminate the requirement under the HIPAA regulations that participants pay an additional premium or contribution for limited-scope vision or dental benefits to qualify as benefits that are not an integral part of a plan (and therefore as excepted benefits). The Departments invite comments on this approach.

B. Limited Wraparound Coverage

The Affordable Care Act requires that non-grandfathered health plans in the individual and small group markets cover essential health benefits (EHB), which include items and services in ten statutorily specified categories that are equal in scope to a typical employer plan.18 Because employer group coverage varies from State to State, HHS regulations at 45 CFR 156.100 provide for States to adopt individual benchmarks from among a range of primarily small group plan offerings in each State to serve as a reference plan, reflecting both the scope of services and limits offered by a typical employer plan in that State.19

Prior to the Affordable Care Act, there was no Federal requirement that health coverage in the individual and small group market include a standardized set of benefits such as those included in EHB. Self-insured group health plans and health insurance coverage in the large group market often cover items and services in addition to the types of services included in EHB. For example, items and services that either cannot be or are unlikely to be included in EHB include routine adult vision and dental care, long-term/custodial nursing home care, non-medically necessary pediatric orthodontia, and coverage that extends beyond the benchmark plan's coverage of wellness programs, manipulative treatment, infertility, home health care, private duty nursing, hospice, or certain non-traditional treatments. In addition, some of these group health plans may provide broader provider networks, in terms of the number and types of contracted providers, than those often included in the individual and small group market. Federal law is designed to encourage employers to provide group coverage for their employees.20

20 Section 4980H of the Code generally provides that an applicable large employer is subject to an assessable payment if one or more full-time employees is certified to the employer as having received an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction and either (1) the employer fails to offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage (MEC) under an eligible employer sponsored plan, or (2) the employer offers its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in MEC under an eligible employer-sponsored plan but the coverage fails to meet requirements for affordability and minimum value. Section 5000A of the Code provides that MEC includes group health plans that are self-insured or are offered in the large or small group market within a State. Under section 5000A, nonexempt individuals must either maintain MEC for themselves and any nonexempt family members or include an additional payment with their Federal income tax return. Section 36B of the Code allows a premium tax credit to certain taxpayers who enroll (or whose family members enroll) in a qualified health plan (QHP) through an Exchange. The credit subsidizes a portion of the premiums for the QHP. In general, the premium tax credit may not subsidize coverage for an individual who is eligible for other MEC. If the MEC is eligible employer-sponsored coverage, however, an individual is treated as eligible for that coverage only if the coverage is affordable and provides minimum value or if the individual enrolls in the coverage.

Experts suggest that most workers who are offered minimum value employer-sponsored coverage will not meet the criteria for the premiums to be considered to be “unaffordable” and thus not qualify for the premium tax credit for enrolling in coverage through an Exchange.21 Nevertheless, in some cases, employer plans may be unaffordable for some employees. These individuals might purchase coverage through an Exchange with a premium tax credit. While such individuals might pay lower premiums for coverage through an Exchange, they might also have less generous coverage in terms of benefits or a different provider network than they would have had in their group health plan. Some group health plan sponsors have asked whether wraparound coverage could be provided for employees for whom the employer premium is unaffordable and who obtain coverage through an Exchange. This approach would allow employers to provide such employees with overall coverage that is comparable to the group health plan coverage, taking into account both the wraparound coverage and the Exchange coverage.

21See Congressional Budget Office, CBO and JCT Estimates of the Effects of the Affordable Care Act on the Number of People Obtaining Employer-Based Insurance, March 2012, at Table 2, available at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-15-ACA_and_Insurance_2.pdf.See also Carter C. Price & Evan Saltzman, Delaying the Employer Mandate, July 2013, available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR411.html.

Accordingly, the Departments have developed these proposed regulations to treat certain wraparound coverage provided under a group health plan as excepted benefits when it is offered to individuals who could receive such benefits through their group health plan if they could afford the premiums, but who do not enroll in the employer-sponsored plan because the premium is unaffordable under the law. As excepted benefits, the coverage would generally be exempt from the HIPAA and Affordable Care Act market reform requirements of ERISA, the PHS Act, and the Code. Wraparound coverage would only qualify as excepted benefits under limited circumstances in order to alleviate two concerns. First, the wraparound coverage could not replace group coverage for employers who drop coverage or who otherwise do not offer minimum value coverage. Instead, the wraparound coverage would only be considered to be an excepted benefit if it is used to provide additional coverage to individuals and families enrolled in non-grandfathered individual health insurance coverage and for whom minimum value coverage under the employer's group health plan is offered but is unaffordable. Second, the proposed rules aim to prevent plan sponsors from structuring wraparound coverage so that low-income workers receive fewer primary benefits than high-income workers. These proposed regulations are intended to allow a plan sponsor to maintain a comparable level of benefits for all potential enrollees, including not only high-income workers in their group health plan but also low-income workers that enroll in non-grandfathered individual market coverage, promoting equity in coverage.

The proposed regulations, which the Departments are proposing would be effective for plan years starting in 2015, describe the circumstances under which employer-provided wraparound coverage would constitute excepted benefits (limited wraparound coverage) and therefore would not disqualify an employee from eligibility for the premium tax credit and cost-sharing reductions. The Departments note that provision of excepted benefits will not satisfy an applicable large employer's responsibilities under section 4980H of the Code. Under these proposed regulations, limited wraparound coverage is an excepted benefit if five conditions are met.

First, the coverage can wrap around only certain coverage provided through the individual market. Specifically, the individual health insurance coverage must be non-grandfathered and cannot consist solely of excepted benefits. In States that elect to establish a Basic Health Program (BHP), certain low-income individuals (for example, those with household income between 133% and 200% of the Federal poverty level) who would otherwise qualify for a tax credit to obtain a qualified health plan through an Exchange will instead be enrolled in coverage through the BHP. Therefore, the Departments invite comments on how an employer might make wraparound coverage available to BHP enrollees.

Second, the limited wraparound coverage must be specifically designed to provide benefits beyond those offered by the individual health insurance coverage. Specifically, the limited wraparound coverage must provide either benefits that are in addition to EHBs, or reimburse the cost of health care providers considered out-of-network under the individual health insurance coverage, or both. The Departments invite comments on the types of benefits and provider arrangements that could be included in this coverage as well as their similarities to, or differences from, other types of excepted benefits described in the HIPAA regulations. The Departments also invite comments on whether the proposed standard should be modified to require that these wraparound coverage benefits be “substantial” or “material” and, if so, how those terms should be defined.

The limited wraparound coverage may, but is not required to, also provide benefits to reimburse for participants' otherwise applicable cost sharing under the individual health insurance policy, but that cannot be its primary purpose. For the benefits to be considered specifically designed to wrap around the individual health insurance coverage, it must provide additional wraparound benefits as discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph; the coverage cannot provide benefits solely pursuant to a coordination-of-benefits provision that simply pays benefits whenever the individual health insurance policy does not cover all or part of a medical expense.

The third condition requires the limited wraparound coverage to be otherwise not an integral part of a group health plan. That is, under the proposed regulations, the plan sponsor offering the limited wraparound coverage must sponsor another group health plan meeting minimum value (as defined under section 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Code) for the plan year, referred to as the “primary plan.” This primary plan must be affordable for a majority of the employees eligible for the primary plan. Only individuals eligible for this primary plan may be eligible for the limited wraparound coverage. The Departments seek input on this proposed standard, including whether the majority level is an appropriate level (or whether the primary plan should provide coverage that is affordable for a higher or lower percentage of employees), recognizing the goal of preventing plan sponsors from shifting participants from the employer-sponsored primary plan to the individual market with limited wraparound coverage. Assuming use of the 9.5% of income test set forth in section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Code as the basic definition of “affordable,” the Departments also request comments on how to implement that definition here—for example, whether the Departments should use a Form W-2 safe harbor based on employee wages like the one set forth in the proposed regulations under Code section 4980H.

Under the fourth condition set forth in the proposed regulations, the limited wraparound coverage must be limited in amount. Specifically, the total cost of coverage under the limited wraparound coverage must not exceed 15 percent of the cost of coverage under the primary plan offered to employees eligible for the wraparound coverage.22 For this purpose, the cost of coverage includes both employer and employee contributions towards coverage and is determined in the same manner as that in which the applicable premium is calculated under a COBRA continuation provision.23 This is similar to the standard in the 2007 enforcement safe harbor for treating supplemental health insurance coverage as excepted benefits. Under the safe harbor, the cost of coverage under the supplemental policy, certificate, or contract of insurance must not exceed 15 percent of the cost of primary coverage.24 The Departments solicit comment on the level of this threshold, as well as other possible thresholds that could be used to ensure that the benefit is limited in amount, such as whether other thresholds used in the context of health FSAs or health savings accounts (HSAs) would be easier to administer or more appropriate.

22 If an employer provides more than one primary plan option (for example, a health maintenance organization option and a preferred provider organization option), and one primary plan does not satisfy the 15% standard but another plan does, the Departments would consider the 15% standard to be met if the average value of the primary plan options meets the 15% standard.

23 Under the COBRA rules, plans are generally permitted to charge up to 102 percent of the applicable premium. The cost of coverage for purposes of these proposed regulations is 100 percent of the applicable premium, not 102 percent of the applicable premium that the plan is generally permitted to charge under the COBRA rules.

The fifth and final condition for the limited wraparound coverage to qualify as excepted benefits relates to nondiscrimination. The limited wraparound coverage must not differentiate among individuals in eligibility, benefits, or premiums based on any health factor of an individual (or any dependent of the individual), consistent with the requirements of section 2705 of the PHS Act (as incorporated into ERISA section 715 and Code section 9815) and its implementing regulations. This condition is similar to the standard in the 2007 enforcement safe harbor treating supplemental health insurance coverage as excepted benefits. In addition to the cost standard mentioned above, the safe harbor requires that such coverage be similar to Medicare Supplemental Coverage in that it must not differentiate among individuals in eligibility, benefits, or premiums based on any health factor of an individual (or any dependent of the individual).

In addition, to satisfy the fifth condition, the limited wraparound coverage must not impose any preexisting condition exclusion, consistent with the requirements of section 2704 of the PHS Act (as incorporated into ERISA section 715 and Code section 9815) and its implementing regulations. Finally, both the primary coverage and the limited wraparound coverage must not discriminate in favor of highly compensated individuals, consistent with the provisions of section 2716 of the PHS Act (also incorporated by reference into ERISA section 715 and Code section 9815) and section 105(h) of the Code, and its implementing regulations at 26 CFR 1.105-11 as applicable.25 These limitations are intended to ensure the coverage is available regardless of health status and to prevent employers from shifting employees with high medical costs to an Exchange. Conditioning excepted benefit status on meeting standards consistent with the compensation-based nondiscrimination rules, in combination with the requirement that the primary plan be affordable for a majority of the employees eligible for it, helps ensure that employers will not be able to use wraparound coverage to send excessive numbers of low wage workers to the Exchanges. Comments are invited as to whether additional nondiscrimination standards are needed to prevent such cost-shifting and abuse.

25 Section 2716 of the PHS Act (as incorporated into ERISA and the Code) generally applies to insured coverage and section 105(h) of the Code and its implementing regulations generally apply to self-insured coverage.

C. Employee Assistance Programs

Employee assistance programs (EAPs) are typically programs offered by employers that can provide a wide-ranging set of benefits to address circumstances that might otherwise adversely affect employees' work and health. Benefits may include short-term substance use disorder or mental health counseling or referral services, as well as financial counseling and legal services. They are typically available free of charge to employees and are often provided through third-party vendors. To the extent an EAP provides benefits for medical care, it would generally be considered group health plan coverage, which would generally be subject to the HIPAA and Affordable Care Act market reform requirements, unless the EAP meets the criteria for being excepted benefits.

Since enactment of the Affordable Care Act, various stakeholders have asked the Departments to treat EAPs as excepted benefits for reasons analogous to the arguments described above with respect to vision and dental benefits. Specifically, some employers represented that compliance with the prohibition on annual limits could be problematic as such benefits are typically very limited, and that EAPs generally are intended to provide benefits in addition to those provided under other group health plans sponsored by employers. Moreover, consumer groups have represented that EAPs with very limited benefits, which may be the only coverage offered to employees, may prohibit the employee from obtaining a premium tax credit under section 36B of the Code if the EAP is treated as minimum essential coverage under section 5000A of the Code. At the same time, the Departments recognize that no universal definition exists for EAPs, and are concerned that employers not act to shift primary coverage to a separate “EAP plan,” exempt from the consumer protection provisions of title XXVII of the PHS Act, part 7 of ERISA, and chapter 100 of the Code, including the mental health parity provisions.26

The Departments issued guidance on September 13, 2013, which stated the Departments' intent to amend the excepted benefits regulations with respect to EAPs.27 The guidance also provided transition relief, stating, “[u]ntil rulemaking is finalized, through at least 2014, the Departments will consider an employee assistance program or EAP to constitute excepted benefits only if the employee assistance program or EAP does not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment. For this purpose, employers may use a reasonable, good faith interpretation of whether an employee assistance program or EAP provides significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment.”

These proposed regulations set forth criteria for an EAP to qualify as excepted benefits beginning in 2015. Under these proposed regulations, benefits provided under EAPs are excepted if four criteria are met. First, the program cannot provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care. The Departments invite comments on how to define “significant.” For example, the Departments request comments as to whether a program that provides no more than 10 outpatient visits for mental health or substance use disorder counseling, an annual wellness checkup, immunizations, and diabetes counseling, with no inpatient care benefits, should be considered to provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care.28

28 Other examples of EAPs that do not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care, discussed in IRS Notice 2004-50 Q&A-10 include (1) an EAP with benefits that consist primarily of free or low-cost confidential short-term counseling (which could address substance abuse, alcoholism, mental health or emotional disorders, financial or legal difficulties, and dependent care needs) to identify an employee's problem that may affect job performance and, when appropriate, referrals to an outside organization, facility or program to assist the employee in resolving the problem; and (2) a wellness program that provides a wide-range of education and fitness services (also including sports and recreation activities, stress management, and health screenings) designed to improve the overall health of the employees and prevent illness, where any costs charged to the individual for participating in the services are separate from the individual's coverage under the health plan.

The second criterion for an EAP to constitute excepted benefits is that its benefits cannot be coordinated with benefits under another group health plan. The Departments propose three conditions to meet this standard. Participants in the separate group health plan must not be required to exhaust benefits under the EAP (making the EAP a “gatekeeper”) before an individual is eligible for benefits under the other group health plan. Moreover, participant eligibility for benefits under the EAP must not be dependent on participation in another group health plan. Lastly, benefits under the EAP must not be financed by another group health plan.

The third criterion for an EAP to constitute excepted benefits is that no employee premiums or contributions be required to participate in the EAP. The fourth criterion is that there is no cost sharing under the EAP.

These criteria are intended to ensure that employers are able to continue offering EAPs as supplemental benefits to other coverage, and to ensure that in circumstances in which an EAP with limited benefits is the only coverage, or the only affordable coverage provided to an employee, that the coverage does not unreasonably disqualify an employee from otherwise being eligible for the premium tax credit for enrolling in coverage through an Exchange. The Departments request comments on whether the criteria proposed are sufficient to prevent the potential for abuse, including the evasion of compliance with the mental health parity provisions, and whether different or additional standards should be included.

D. Comment Solicitation, Applicability Date and Reliance

The Departments invite comments on these proposed regulations generally, and on the specific issues identified in this preamble. Until rulemaking is finalized, through at least 2014, for purposes of enforcing the provisions of title XXVII of the PHS Act, part 7 of ERISA, and chapter 100 of the Code, the Departments will consider dental and vision benefits, and EAP benefits, meeting the conditions of these proposed regulations to qualify as excepted benefits. To the extent final regulations or other guidance with respect to vision or dental benefits or EAPs is more restrictive on plans and issuers than these proposed regulations, the final regulations or other guidance will not be effective prior to January 1, 2015.

III. Economic Impact and Paperwork BurdenA. Summary—Department of Labor and Department of Health and Human Services

As stated above, these proposed regulations would amend the definition of limited excepted benefits to: (1) Eliminate the requirement that participants in self-insured plans pay an additional contribution for limited-scope vision or dental benefits to qualify as benefits that are not an integral part of a plan (and therefore as excepted benefits); (2) allow plan sponsors in limited circumstances to offer wraparound coverage to individuals who, but for the unaffordability of the premium, would receive such benefits through their group health plan; and (3) set forth the criteria under which EAPs that do not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care constitute excepted benefits.

B. Executive Order 12866—Department of Labor and Department of Health and Human Services

OMB has determined that this regulatory action is significant within the meaning of section 3(f)(4) of the Executive Order, and the Departments accordingly provide the following assessment of its potential benefits and costs. The Departments expect the impact of these proposed regulations to be limited because they do not require any action or impose any requirements on employers and plan sponsors. The proposed modifications to vision, dental, and EAP benefits are primarily clarifications. Additionally, the Departments expect that the take-up with respect to limited wraparound coverage will be limited for several reasons. The proposed rules are designed so that the wraparound coverage could not replace group coverage for employers who drop coverage or who otherwise do not offer minimum value coverage. Instead, the wraparound coverage would only be considered to be an excepted benefit if it is used to provide additional coverage to individuals and families enrolled in non-grandfathered individual health insurance coverage and for whom minimum value coverage under the employer's group health plan is offered but is unaffordable. Moreover, the proposed rules aim to prevent plan sponsors from structuring wraparound coverage so that low-income workers receive fewer primary benefits than high-income workers. Lastly, the Departments note that provision of excepted benefits will not satisfy an applicable large employer's responsibilities under section 4980H of the Code.

One objective of the Affordable Care Act is to allow individuals with comprehensive health insurance plans to maintain their current level of benefits. The Departments recognize that many plan sponsors provide generous health benefits to their workers. Some employers offer EAPs or other additional benefits to their employees as part of a comprehensive set of benefits. Others are interested in newly offering wraparound coverage to employees who qualify for tax credits in an Exchange to provide them with coverage comparable to employees who enroll in a group health plan. These proposed regulations would clarify the circumstances under which plan sponsors can provide such limited wraparound coverage to make their employees' coverage “whole.”

Specifically, these proposed regulations would allow plan sponsors to provide coverage for limited vision, dental, wraparound, and EAP benefits consistent with the qualifications for excepted benefits. These proposed improvements would help employees by continuing to maintain their access to health coverage that new requirements could constrain. The Departments expect these proposed regulations to have some costs, but these costs could be limited because they would not require any action or impose any requirements on employers and plan sponsors; take-up may be low; and the proposed modifications to vision, dental, and EAP benefits are primarily clarifications. With respect to vision and dental benefits, the proposed regulations would allow self-insured plans to offer dental and vision benefits to employees without charging a nominal contribution. With respect to EAPs, the proposed regulations would clarify the extent to which such benefits constitute excepted benefits rather than primary coverage.

With respect to wraparound coverage, the proposed regulations would allow plan sponsors to offer limited wraparound coverage to employees in certain limited circumstances. This proposal is not intended to replace group coverage for employers who drop coverage or who do not otherwise offer it, and offering the wraparound coverage will not satisfy an applicable large employer's responsibilities under section 4980H of the Code. Instead, the proposal is intended for plan sponsors whose goal is to provide health benefits to employees eligible for coverage through an Exchange that is, in total, comparable to the benefits offered through the sponsor's minimum value group health plan. As such, the targets of the proposed regulation are plan sponsors who otherwise would provide the full range of health benefits to qualifying enrollees. The wraparound coverage may only be offered to individuals eligible for the primary plan coverage the plan sponsor offers; and that primary coverage must provide minimum value and must be affordable for a majority of employees who are eligible for the primary plan coverage. Plan designs will be limited by nondiscrimination rules aimed at preventing plan sponsors from discriminating in favor of highly compensated employees or offering different benefits for workers along other dimensions such as health status (i.e., discriminating against those with high medical costs).

The proposal provides additional flexibility for sponsors and does not impose additional costs on sponsors. The Federal budget impact of the proposal also depends on assumptions about the choices made by employers and workers. As with other group health coverage, employer contributions to the limited wraparound coverage would be excluded from employee income for tax purposes. The budget implications of adding limited wraparound coverage as a form of excepted benefits depend on the number of employers that elect this option and the number of employees that in turn receive it. As previously described, this proposal targets a narrow group of plan sponsors: those that offer minimum value coverage that is affordable for a majority of employees. The Departments seek input on this standard, including whether the majority level is an appropriate level (or whether the primary plan should provide coverage that is affordable for a larger or smaller fraction of employees), recognizing the goal of preventing plan sponsors from shifting employees from the primary plan to the individual market with limited wraparound coverage, and on the cost implications of different definitions. The cost of this proposal is difficult to quantify, as it is unclear how many plan sponsors will be eligible to offer and how many employees will elect the wraparound coverage. It is important to note that the cost of the proposed limited wraparound coverage can be reduced by limiting its availability. This could be accomplished by modifying the “majority” standard so that a greater proportion of employees would have to be offered a primary plan that is affordable. The majority level was proposed to help minimize the implications for the primary plan's risk pool by preventing a large number of low-wage workers from leaving the primary plan for Exchange coverage. The Departments invite input on this level, and on other standards that would achieve these goals.

Another factor in assessing the proposal's cost is that the decision to offer the wraparound coverage is optional. There is greater administrative complexity associated with the wraparound coverage than primary coverage and, given a choice, some plan sponsors may choose to increase the affordability of their primary coverage rather than offer limited wraparound coverage. Some plan sponsors may not have that choice: the employers may not be in a financial position to make their primary health plans affordable, let alone contribute to wraparound coverage. Employers may also continue to allow employees to simply obtain Exchange coverage with no additional wraparound benefit, and these employers would continue to pay any shared responsibility payments as applicable, resulting in no additional Federal costs.

The Departments seek comment on the effects of the proposal. Specifically, the Departments request detailed data that would inform the following questions: How many employers offer coverage that provides minimum value and is affordable for a majority of the employees who are eligible for coverage? What is the total number of individuals who are eligible for primary plan coverage that provides minimum value and is affordable for a majority of eligible employees, but would not find it affordable? To what extent would this proposed rule cause employers to drop health insurance coverage or avoid newly offering it, and what is the dollar value associated with such dropped coverage? To what extent would wrap-around coverage be offered more widely as a result of this rule, and what is the average dollar value associated with such coverage? To what extent would premiums for relatively generous health coverage change in the presence and in the absence of this rule?

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act—Department of Labor and Department of Health and Human Services

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA) imposes certain requirements with respect to Federal rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) and that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unless an agency certifies that a proposed rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 603 of RFA requires that the agency present an initial regulatory flexibility analysis at the time of the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking describing the impact of the rule on small entities and seeking public comment on such impact. Small entities include small businesses, organizations and governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of the RFA, the Departments continue to consider a small entity to be an employee benefit plan with fewer than 100 participants. The basis for this definition is found in section 104(a)(2) of the act, which permits the Secretary of Labor to prescribe simplified annual reports for pension plans that cover fewer than 100 participants. Pursuant to the authority of section 104(a)(3), the Department of Labor has previously issued at 29 CFR 2520.104-20, 2520.104-21, 2520.104-41, 2520.104-46 and 2520.104b-10 certain simplified reporting provisions and limited exemptions from reporting and disclosure requirements for small plans, including unfunded or insured welfare plans covering fewer than 100 participants and satisfying certain other requirements.

Further, while some large employers may have small plans, in general small employers maintain most small plans. Thus, the Departments believe that assessing the impact of these proposed rules on small plans is an appropriate substitute for evaluating the effect on small entities. The definition of small entity considered appropriate for this purpose differs, however, from a definition of small business that is based on size standards promulgated by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) pursuant to the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.). The Departments therefore request comments on the appropriateness of the size standard used in evaluating the impact of this proposed rule on small entities.

Because the proposed rules would impose no additional costs on employers or plans, the Departments believe that it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Departments hereby certify that the proposed rules, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Special Analyses—Department of the Treasury

For purposes of the Department of the Treasury it has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these proposed regulations, and, because these proposed regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), as well as Executive Order 12875, these proposed rules do not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, which may impose an annual burden of $100 million adjusted for inflation since 1995.

F. Federalism—Department of Labor and Department of Health and Human Services

Executive Order 13132 outlines fundamental principles of federalism. It requires adherence to specific criteria by Federal agencies in formulating and implementing policies that have “substantial direct effects” on the States, the relationship between the national government and States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Federal agencies promulgating regulations that have these federalism implications must consult with State and local officials, and describe the extent of their consultation and the nature of the concerns of State and local officials in the preamble to the final regulation.

In the Departments' view, the proposed regulations, by clarifying policy regarding certain excepted benefits options that can be designed by employers to support their employees, would provide more certainty to employers and others in the regulated community as well as States and political subdivisions regarding the treatment of such arrangements under ERISA. Accordingly, the Departments will affirmatively engage in outreach with officials of State and political subdivisions regarding the proposed rules and seek their input on the proposed rules and any federalism implications that they believe may be presented by it.

G. Congressional Review Act

These proposed regulations are subject to the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), and, if finalized, will be transmitted to the Congress and to the Comptroller General for review in accordance with such provisions.

IV. Statutory Authority

The Department of the Treasury regulations are proposed to be adopted pursuant to the authority contained in sections 7805 and 9833 of the Code.

The Department of Health and Human Services regulations are proposed to be adopted pursuant to the authority contained in sections 2701 through 2763, 2791, and 2792 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg-63, 300gg-91, and 300gg-92), as amended.

PART 54—PENSION EXCISE TAXESParagraph 1. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read, in part, as follows:Authority:

26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *

Section 54.9831-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 9833; * * *

Paragraph 2. Section 54.9831-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(ii), and adding paragraphs (c)(3)(vi) and (c)(3)(vii), to read as follows:§ 54.9831-1Special rules relating to group health plans.

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) In general. Limited-scope dental benefits, limited-scope vision benefits, or long-term care benefits are excepted if they are provided under a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance, or are otherwise not an integral part of a group health plan as described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section. In addition, benefits provided under a health flexible spending arrangement are excepted benefits if they satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(v) of this section. Furthermore, benefits that wraparound individual health insurance coverage are excepted benefits if they satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(vi) of this section, and benefits provided under an employee assistance program are excepted benefits if they satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of this section.

(ii) Not an integral part of a group health plan. For purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), benefits are not an integral part of a group health plan (whether the benefits are provided through the same plan or a separate plan) only if participants have the right to elect not to receive coverage for the benefits.

(vi) Limited wraparound coverage. Limited benefits that wraparound benefits provided through individual health insurance coverage are excepted benefits if all of the following requirements are satisfied—

(A) Wraps around certain individual health insurance coverage. The individual health insurance coverage is not a grandfathered health plan (as described in section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act) and does not consist solely of excepted benefits (as defined in paragraph (c) of this section).

(B) Covers benefits or providers not covered by individual health insurance coverage. The wraparound coverage is specifically designed to wrap around the individual health insurance coverage described in paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(A) of this section, as follows:

(1) The wraparound coverage must provide coverage of benefits that are not essential health benefits, or reimburse the cost of health care providers that are considered out-of-network under the individual health insurance coverage, or both. The wraparound coverage may also provide benefits for participants' otherwise applicable cost sharing under the individual health insurance policy.

(2) The wraparound coverage must not provide benefits only under a coordination-of-benefits provision.

(C) Otherwise not an integral part of the plan. The plan sponsor with respect to the wraparound coverage must sponsor another group health plan meeting minimum value (as defined under section 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii)) and that is affordable for a majority of the employees eligible for that group health plan (“primary plan”). Only individuals eligible for this primary plan may be eligible for the wraparound coverage.

(D) Limited in amount. The total cost of coverage under the wraparound coverage must not exceed 15 percent of the cost of coverage under the primary plan (as described in paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(C) of this section). For this purpose, the cost of coverage includes both employer and employee contributions towards coverage and is determined in the same manner as the applicable premium is calculated under a COBRA continuation provision.

(E) Nondiscrimination. The following conditions must be satisfied:

(1) The wraparound coverage must not differentiate among individuals in eligibility, benefits, or premiums based on any health factor of an individual (or any dependent of the individual), consistent with the requirements of section 2705 of the PHS Act (as incorporated into section 9815) and § 54.9802-1.

(2) The wraparound coverage must not impose any preexisting condition exclusion, consistent with the requirements of section 2704 of the PHS Act (as incorporated into section 9815).

(3) To the extent the primary coverage is insured, the primary coverage must not be discriminatory under section 2716 the PHS Act (as incorporated into section 9815). To the extent the primary coverage is self-insured, the primary coverage must not be discriminatory under section 105(h) and § 1.105-11.

(4) To the extent the wraparound coverage is insured, the wraparound coverage must not be discriminatory under section 2716 the PHS Act (as incorporated into section 9815) and to the extent the wraparound coverage is self-insured, the wraparound coverage must not be discriminatory under section 105(h) and § 1.105-11.

(vii) Employee assistance programs. Benefits provided under employee assistance programs are excepted if they satisfy all of the following requirements—

(A) The program does not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care.

(B) The benefits under the employee assistance program cannot be coordinated with benefits under another group health plan, as follows:

(1) Participants in the other group health plan must not be required to exhaust benefits under the employee assistance program (making the employee assistance program a gatekeeper) before an individual is eligible for benefits under the other group health plan;

(2) Participant eligibility for benefits under the employee assistance program must not be dependent on participation in another group health plan; and

(3) Benefits under the employee assistance program must not be financed by another group health plan.

(C) No employee premiums or contributions may be required as a condition of participation in the employee assistance program.

(D) There is no cost sharing under the employee assistance program.

Employee Benefits Security Administration29 CFR Chapter XXV

For the reasons set forth above, 29 CFR part 2590 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 2590—RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR GROUP HEALTH PLANS1. The authority citation for part 2590 continues to read as follows:Authority:

2. Section 2590.732 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(ii), and adding paragraphs (c)(3)(vi) and (c)(3)(vii), to read as follows:§ 2590.732Special rules relating to group health plans.

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) In general. Limited-scope dental benefits, limited-scope vision benefits, or long-term care benefits are excepted if they are provided under a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance, or are otherwise not an integral part of a group health plan as described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section. In addition, benefits provided under a health flexible spending arrangement are excepted benefits if they satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(v) of this section. Furthermore, benefits that wraparound individual health insurance coverage are excepted benefits if they satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(vi) of this section, and benefits provided under an employee assistance program are excepted benefits if they satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of this section.

(ii) Not an integral part of a group health plan. For purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), benefits are not an integral part of a group health plan (whether the benefits are provided through the same plan or a separate plan) only if participants have the right to elect not to receive coverage for the benefits.

(vi) Limited wraparound coverage. Limited benefits that wraparound benefits provided through individual health insurance coverage are excepted benefits if all of the following requirements are satisfied—

(A) Wraps around certain individual health insurance coverage. The individual health insurance coverage is not a grandfathered health plan (as described in section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act and § 2590.715-1251 of this part) and does not consist solely of excepted benefits (as defined in paragraph (c) of this section).

(B) Covers benefits or providers not covered by individual health insurance coverage. The wraparound coverage is specifically designed to wrap around the individual health insurance coverage described in paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(A) of this section, as follows:

(1) The wraparound coverage must provide coverage of benefits that are not essential health benefits, or reimburse the cost of health care providers that are considered out-of-network under the individual health insurance coverage, or both. The wraparound coverage may also provide benefits for participants' otherwise applicable cost sharing under the individual health insurance policy.

(2) The wraparound coverage must not provide benefits only under a coordination-of-benefits provision.

(C) Otherwise not an integral part of the plan. The plan sponsor with respect to the wraparound coverage must sponsor another group health plan meeting minimum value (as defined under section 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Code) and that is affordable for a majority of the employees eligible for that group health plan (“primary plan”). Only individuals eligible for this primary plan may be eligible for the wraparound coverage.

(D) Limited in amount. The total cost of coverage under the wraparound coverage must not exceed 15 percent of the cost of coverage under the primary plan (as described in paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(C) of this section). For this purpose, the cost of coverage includes both employer and employee contributions towards coverage and is determined in the same manner as the applicable premium is calculated under a COBRA continuation provision.

(E) Nondiscrimination. The following conditions must be satisfied:

(1) The wraparound coverage must not differentiate among individuals in eligibility, benefits, or premiums based on any health factor of an individual (or any dependent of the individual), consistent with the requirements of section 2705 of the PHS Act (as incorporated into ERISA section 715) and § 2590.715-2705.

(2) The wraparound coverage must not impose any preexisting condition exclusion, consistent with the requirements of section 2704 of the PHS Act (as incorporated into ERISA section 715) and § 2590.715-2704.

(3) To the extent the primary coverage is insured, the primary coverage must not be discriminatory under section 2716 the PHS Act (as incorporated into ERISA section 715). To the extent the primary coverage is self-insured, the primary coverage must not be discriminatory under section 105(h) of the Code and 26 CFR 1.105-11.

(4) To the extent the wraparound coverage is insured, the wraparound coverage must not be discriminatory under section 2716 the PHS Act (as incorporated into ERISA section 715). To the extent the wraparound coverage is self-insured, the wraparound coverage must not be discriminatory under section 105(h) of the Code and 26 CFR 1.105-11.

(vii) Employee assistance programs. Benefits provided under employee assistance programs are excepted if they satisfy all of the following requirements—

(A) The program does not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care.

(B) The benefits under the employee assistance program cannot be coordinated with benefits under another group health plan, as follows:

(1) Participants in the other group health plan must not be required to exhaust benefits under the employee assistance program (making the employee assistance program a gatekeeper) before an individual is eligible for benefits under the other group health plan;

(2) Participant eligibility for benefits under the employee assistance program must not be dependent on participation in another group health plan; and

(3) Benefits under the employee assistance program must not be financed by another group health plan.

(C) No employee premiums or contributions may be required as a condition of participation in the employee assistance program.

(D) There is no cost sharing under the employee assistance program.

Department of Health and Human Services45 CFR Subtitle A

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services proposes to amend 45 CFR part 146 as set forth below:

PART 146—REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET1. The authority citation for part 146 continues to read as follows:Authority:

Secs. 2702 through 2705, 2711 through 2723, 2791, and 2792 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-1 through 300gg-5, 300gg-11 through 300gg-23, 300gg-91, and 300gg-92).

2. Section 146.145 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(ii), and adding paragraphs (c)(3)(vi) and (c)(3)(vii), to read as follows:§ 146.145Special rules relating to group health plans.

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) In general. Limited-scope dental benefits, limited-scope vision benefits, or long-term care benefits are excepted if they are provided under a separate policy, certificate, or contract of insurance, or are otherwise not an integral part of a group health plan as described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section. In addition, benefits provided under a health flexible spending arrangement are excepted benefits if they satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(v) of this section. Furthermore, benefits that wraparound individual health insurance coverage are excepted benefits if they satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(vi) of this section, and benefits provided under an employee assistance program are excepted benefits if they satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of this section.

(ii) Not an integral part of a group health plan. For purposes of this paragraph (c)(3), benefits are not an integral part of a group health plan (whether the benefits are provided through the same plan or a separate plan) only if participants have the right to elect not to receive coverage for the benefits.

(vi) Limited wraparound coverage. Limited benefits that wraparound benefits provided through individual health insurance coverage are excepted benefits if all of the following requirements are satisfied—

(A) Wraps around certain individual health insurance coverage. The individual health insurance coverage is not a grandfathered health plan (as described in section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act and § 147.140 of this subchapter) and does not consist solely of excepted benefits (as defined in paragraph (c) of this section).

(B) Covers benefits or providers not covered by individual health insurance coverage. The wraparound coverage is specifically designed to wrap around the individual health insurance coverage described in paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(A) of this section, as follows:

(1) The wraparound coverage must provide coverage of benefits that are not essential health benefits, or reimburse the cost of health care providers that are considered out-of-network under the individual health insurance coverage, or both. The wraparound coverage may also provide benefits for participants' otherwise applicable cost sharing under the individual health insurance policy.

(2) The wraparound coverage must not provide benefits only under a coordination-of-benefits provision.

(C) Otherwise not an integral part of the plan. The plan sponsor with respect to the wraparound coverage must sponsor another group health plan meeting minimum value (as defined under section 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Code) and that is affordable for a majority of the employees eligible for that group health plan (“primary plan”). Only individuals eligible for this primary plan may be eligible for the wraparound coverage.

(D) Limited in amount. The total cost of coverage under the wraparound coverage must not exceed 15 percent of the cost of coverage under the primary plan (as described in paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(C) of this section). For this purpose, the cost of coverage includes both employer and employee contributions towards coverage and is determined in the same manner as the applicable premium is calculated under a COBRA continuation provision.

(E) Nondiscrimination. The following conditions must be satisfied:

(1) The wraparound coverage must not differentiate among individuals in eligibility, benefits, or premiums based on any health factor of an individual (or any dependent of the individual), consistent with the requirements of section 2705 of the PHS Act and § 147.110 of this subchapter.

(2) The wraparound coverage must not impose any preexisting condition exclusion, consistent with the requirements of section 2704 of the PHS Act and § 147.108 of this subchapter.

(3) To the extent the primary coverage is insured, the primary coverage must not be discriminatory under section 2716 the PHS Act. To the extent the primary coverage is self-insured, the primary coverage must not be discriminatory under section 105(h) of the Code and 26 CFR 1.105-11.

(4) To the extent the wraparound coverage is insured, the wraparound coverage must not be discriminatory under section 2716 the PHS Act. To the extent the wraparound coverage is self-insured, the wraparound coverage must not be discriminatory under section 105(h) of the Code and 26 CFR 1.105-11.

(vii) Employee assistance programs. Benefits provided under employee assistance programs are excepted if they satisfy all of the following requirements—

(A) The program does not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care.

(B) The benefits under the employee assistance program cannot be coordinated with benefits under another group health plan, as follows:

(1) Participants in the other group health plan must not be required to exhaust benefits under the employee assistance program (making the employee assistance program a gatekeeper) before an individual is eligible for benefits under the other group health plan;

(2) Participant eligibility for benefits under the employee assistance program must not be dependent on participation in another group health plan; and

(3) Benefits under the employee assistance program must not be financed by another group health plan.

(C) No employee premiums or contributions may be required as a condition of participation in the employee assistance program.

The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments regarding this information collection received by January 23, 2014 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Farm Service Agency

Title: Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program.

OMB Control Number: 0560-0175.

Summary of Collection: The Noninsured Crop Assistance Program (NAP) is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 7333 and implemented under regulations issued at 7 CFR Part 1437. The NAP is administered under the general supervision of the Executive Vice-President of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) (who also serves as Administrator, Farm Service Agency (FSA)), and is carried out by the FSA State and County committees. NAP is intended to reduce financial losses that occur when natural disasters cause a catastrophic loss of production or prevented planting of an eligible crop by providing coverage equivalent to the catastrophic risk protection level of Federal Crop Insurance. NAP provides assistance for losses of floriculture, ornamental nursery, Christmas tree crops, turfgrass sod, seed crops, aquaculture (including ornamental fish), sea oats and sea grass, and industrial crops. FSA will collect information using several forms.

Need and Use of the Information: The information collected is necessary to determine whether a producer and crop or commodity meet applicable conditions for assistance and to determine compliance with existing rules. Producers must annually: (1) Request NAP coverage by completing an application for coverage and paying a service fee by the CCC-established application closing date; (2) file a current crop-year report of acreage for the covered crop or commodity; and (3) certify harvest production of each covered crop or commodity. The information collected allows CCC to provide assistance under NAP for losses of commercial crops or other agricultural commodities (except livestock) for which catastrophic risk protection under 7 U.S.C. 1508 is not available, and that are produced for food or fiber.

Description of Respondents: Farms; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit Institutions.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing a meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI). The Committee is being convened to review two topics for FSIS. The first topic will address safe handling instructions included on food labels. FSIS is seeking input from the committee to fully explore enhancing the safe food handling label on meat and poultry packages. With this input, the Agency will consider whether or not the current safe handling instructions should be changed to meet the needs of the consuming public; FSIS is also seeking feedback from NACMPI on FSIS's Establishment-Specific Data Release Strategic Plan. The plan was developed from recommendations by the NACMPI committee in 2010. FSIS would like the committee to review the strategic plan and provide further suggestions.

DATES:

The meeting is scheduled for January 7-8, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The committee will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on January 7th for administrative purposes; this portion of the meeting is not open to the public.

ADDRESSES:

The meetings will be held in the Auditorium at the Patriot Plaza III Building, 355 E. Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. The auditorium is located on the first floor. Please note that due to increased security measures at the Patriot Plaza III, all persons wishing to attend are strongly encouraged to register in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sally Fernandez, Program Specialist, Designated Federal Officer, via Email: Sally.Fernandez@fsis.usda.gov; Telephone: (202) 690-6524; or Fax: (202) 690-6519 regarding specific questions about the committee or this meeting. General information about the committee can also be found at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/informational/aboutfsis/!ut/p/a0/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOINAg3MDC2dDbz8LQ3dDDz9wgL9vZ2dDdz9TfQLsh0VAfb5Y5I!/?1dmy&current=true&urile=wcm%3apath%3a%2Ffsis-content%2Finternet%2Fmain%2Ftopics%2Fregulations%2Fadvisory-committees%2Fnacmpi%2Fnacmpi.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Background

The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary concerning State and Federal programs with respect to meat, poultry, and processed egg product inspection, safety, and other matters that fall within the scope of the FMIA and PPIA. The agenda topics are safe handling instructions included on food labels and FSIS's Establishment-Specific Data Release Strategic Plan.

Register for the Meeting: The public is asked to pre-register for the meeting. Your pre-registration must state the following: (1) The names of each person in your group; (2) organization or interest represented; (3) the number of people planning to give oral comments, if any; and (4) whether anyone in your group requires special accommodations. Submit registrations to http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/advisory-committees/nacmpi/nacmpi-meetings. FSIS will also accept walk-in registrations. Members of the public requesting to give an oral comment to the Committee must sign in at the registration desk.

Public Comments: Written public comments may be mailed to: USDA, FSIS, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 3778, Washington, DC 20250; submitted via Fax: (202) 690-6519; or by Email: NACMPI@fsis.usda.gov. All written comments must arrive by February 8, 2013. Oral comments are also accepted (see instructions under “Register for the Meeting” above).

Availability of Materials for the Meeting: All written public comments will be compiled into a binder and available for review at the meeting. Duplicate comments from multiple individuals will appear as one comment, with a notation that multiple copies of the comment were received. Please visit http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/advisory-committees/nacmpi-reports to learn more about the agenda, for the meeting, or reports, resulting from this meeting.

Meeting Accommodations: USDA is committed to ensuring that all interested persons are included in our events. If you are a person with a disability and would like to request reasonable accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact Sally Fernandez via Phone: (202) 690-6524; Fax (202) 690-6519; or Email: Sally.Fernandez@fsis.usda.gov. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

USDA Nondiscrimination Statement

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs).

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY).

To file a written complaint of discrimination, contact USDA Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Additional Public Notification

FSIS will announce this notice on-line through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/federal-register.

FSIS also will make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/programs-and-services/email-subscription-service. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their account.

Corrected Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY:

The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposal by Black Hills Power (BHP) to construct and operate a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between the Teckla and Osage Substations in northeastern Wyoming to the Lange Substation in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is a cooperating agency on this EIS. The Teckla-Osage-Rapid City Transmission 230 kV Project would be approximately 150 miles long. It would cross portions of the Black Hills National Forest and private lands in South Dakota and portions of the Thunder Basin National Grasslands, private lands, BLM lands, and state lands in Wyoming. The line would be constructed on wood or steel H-frame structures for most of its length with possibly some steel monopole structures in the Rapid City area. The structures would be 65 to 75 feet tall and the line would require a right-of-way approximately 125 feet wide.

This corrected notice of intent (corrected NOI) updates information in the original notice, published in the Federal Register August 26, 2011 (76FR53400). A corrected notice was needed to update the timing information for the Draft and Final EISs, and to clarify the mailing address for comments. Also, this project analysis is being conducted under the authority of the Forest Service predecisional objection regulation at 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B, issued in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013 (78FR18481).

DATES:

The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be available for public review in December 2013 and the final environmental impact statement is expected to be completed by August 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Send written comments to Ruth Esperance, District Ranger, Mystic Ranger District, Teckla-Osage-Rapid City Project, 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, South Dakota 57702;. Send comments via email to comments-rocky-mountain-black-hills-mystic@fs.fed.us with “Teckla-Osage-Rapid City Transmission Line” as the subject. Electronic comments must be readable in Word, Rich Text or PDF formats.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Those with questions or needing additional information should contact Jessica Eggers at the Mystic Ranger District office in Rapid City at (605) 343-1567, or Geri Proctor at the Thunder Basin National Grasslands in Douglas, WY at (307) 358-4690. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The actions proposed are in direct response to an application submitted to the Black Hills National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassland by Black Hills Power (BHP) to construct and operate a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between the Teckla and Osage Substations in northeast Wyoming and the Lange Substation in Rapid City, South Dakota. The project area covers parts of Campbell and Weston Counties in Wyoming, and Pennington, Meade, and Lawrence Counties in South Dakota.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of the Teckla-Osage-Rapid City Transmission Project is to:

• Strengthen the regional transmission network• Improve the reliability of the transmission system• Provide additional transmission capacity to help meet the growing demand for electricity and economic development in the regionProposed Action

The proposed action is to construct the Teckla-Osage-Rapid City 230 kV transmission line as described below:

• Approximately 135 miles of transmission line• Require a 125 foot right-of-way• Construction of wood or steel H-frame structures 65-75 feet in height.

This proposal also includes specific actions needed for interim and final reclamation.

The Forest Supervisors and BLM District Manager will decide whether the proposed action will proceed as proposed or as modified by an alternative; which recommended mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will be applied; and whether an Amendment to a forest plan or resource management plan is required.

Issues

Prior to scoping the preliminary issues included effects of the project on plants and wildlife including sensitive species such as sage grouse, goshawks, and other raptors; archaeological sites; hydrology and water quality; and scenic integrity and visual resources. Public scoping and analysis of comments has allowed the Forest Service and BLM to clarify the list of key issues. While the EIS will analyze effects of the alternatives on archaeological sites, hydrology and water quality, these topics are not expected to drive the formulation of alternatives and thus will not be listed as key issues. Those issue topics which will drive alternatives include effects of the project on wildlife including sensitive species such as sage grouse, goshawks, and other raptors; wetlands and vegetation communities; scenic integrity and visual resources; private property including values and electricity rates; existing and future motorized recreation trail opportunities; existing forest vegetation (tree removal); and public health as affected by electromagnetic fields.

Scoping Process and Next Steps

The original notice of intent initiated the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Comments and input regarding the proposal were received from the public, other groups, and agencies during the initial public comment period through October 28, 2011. Public meetings were held at the Hell Canyon Ranger District Office, 1225 Washington Boulevard in Newcastle, WY; and the Mystic Ranger District office, 8221 South Highway 16 in Rapid City, SD. The agencies read and considered all comments, refined the list of issues, and developed one additional alternative to the proposed action, and analyzed the effects of all alternatives. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is expected to be issued in December 2013. The public will be invited to review the DEIS and respond with comment during a 45-day comment period. The agencies expect to host one or more public meetings after the DEIS is issued, with the time(s) and place(s) yet to be determined. Public comment will be reviewed and appropriate changes will be documented in the Final EIS, which is expected to be issued in August 2014.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of any comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

Comments received in response to a solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however, anonymous comments may not provide eligibility to participate in the predecisional objection process.

The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES:

To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before February 24, 2014.

Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Karen Woods, U.S. Census Bureau, 7H110F, Washington, DC 20133-8400 at (301) 763-3806 (or via the internet at Karen.g.wms.woods@census.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Abstract

The Census Bureau plans to request clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of basic demographic information on the Current Population Survey (CPS) beginning in June 2014. The current clearance expires June 30, 2014.

The CPS has been the source of official government statistics on employment and unemployment for over 50 years. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Census Bureau jointly sponsor the basic monthly survey. The Census Bureau also prepares and conducts all the field work. At the OMB's request, the Census Bureau and the BLS divide the clearance request in order to reflect the joint sponsorship and funding of the CPS program. The BLS submits a separate clearance request for the portion of the CPS that collects labor force information for the civilian noninstitutional population. Some of the information within that portion includes employment status, number of hours worked, job search activities, earnings, duration of unemployment, and the industry and occupation classification of the job held the previous week. The justification that follows is in support of the demographic data.

The demographic information collected in the CPS provides a unique set of data on selected characteristics for the civilian noninstitutional population. Some of the demographic information we collect are age, marital status, gender, Armed Forces status, education, race, origin, and family income. We use these data in conjunction with other data, particularly the monthly labor force data, as well as periodic supplement data. We also use these data independently for internal analytic research and for evaluation of other surveys. In addition, we use these data as a control to produce accurate estimates of other personal characteristics.

II. Method of Collection

The CPS basic demographic information is collected from individual households by both personal visit and telephone interviews each month. All interviews are conducted using computer-assisted interviewing. Households in the CPS are in sample for four consecutive months, and for the same four months the following year. This is called a 4-8-4 rotation pattern; households are in sample for four months, in a resting period for eight months, and then in sample again for four months.

III. Data

OMB Control Number: 0607-0049.

Form Number: There are no forms. We conduct all interviews on computers.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 59,000 per month.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.6396 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 19,347.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.

Respondents Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority:

Title 13, U.S.C., Section 182, and Title 29, U.S.C., Sections 1-9.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES:

To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before February 24, 2014.

During the years preceding the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will pursue its commitment to reduce the costs of conducting a decennial census, while striving to maintain the level of quality it achieved for previous ones. A primary decennial census cost driver is the collection of data from members of the public for which the Census Bureau received no reply via initially offered response options. Increasing the number of people who take advantage of self-response options and improving our methods for enumerating people who do not initially respond can contribute to a less costly census with high-quality results, reducing the need for more costly enumerator-administered options.

The 2014 Census Site Test will allow the Census Bureau to, on a small scale, employ a variety of new methods and advanced technologies that are under consideration for the 2020 Census. To improve self-response, the Census Bureau plans to test new contact and notification strategies such as allowing respondents to pre-register their email address, cell phone number/text, mailing address, and physical location, and provide a preference for a contact strategy of either email or text. Furthermore, participants will have the option of responding to the test via multiple response modes including the Internet, paper questionnaires, and telephone interviews. In addition, the 2014 Census Site Test provides an opportunity for the Census Bureau to test potential enhancements to its automated processing of responses lacking a pre-assigned Census identification (ID) number. To optimize the self-response testing, there will be a communications and promotional campaign designed to increase awareness and encourage participation by potential respondents.

Even though self-response is encouraged, there will be households that do not respond and therefore there is a need to test strategies to most effectively and efficiently collect information for those households. The 2014 Census Site Test will examine reducing the total number of contacts made to a household during the Nonresponse Follow-Up (NRFU) operation as well as adapting the number and type of contacts made to a household based on information we have about that household. As well, this test will employ various uses of administrative records, most notably the removal of cases through the use of administrative records data either before or during the field work with the goal to reduce NRFU costs and increase interviewer efficiency. This test of NRFU operations will be accomplished by utilizing an automated field data collection instrument. Additionally, the Census Bureau will experiment with employee-owned commercially available devices on which a custom developed data collection application can be provided, commonly referred to as Bring Your Own Device (BYOD).

II. Method of Collection

The Census Bureau will conduct this test in Washington, DC and Montgomery County, MD. This geographic site test will include 192,500 Housing Units to be contacted for the census. This component includes an initial self-response phase that is followed by a NRFU phase for no more than 50,000 non-responding housing units. The households in NRFU are those who have failed to self-respond by a certain deadline. A Census Bureau employee may visit or phone these households and will attempt to collect their questionnaire data.

For the self-response phase, the Census Bureau will randomly assign sampled housing units to one of eight different contact and enumeration strategies. Each strategy aims to increase the use of self-response enumeration in a decennial census. Most sampled housing units will initially receive a pre-notification containing instructions about how to respond to the test online. Some households will receive a notice that allows respondents to pre-register for the Census and to notify the Census Bureau of their communication preference such as email or text/cell phone. The telephone assistance option will be available to all households. Respondents who become aware of the test can respond by going to the Internet site or contacting the Telephone Questionnaire Assistance line. For those participants who have not responded within an allotted time period, the Census Bureau will attempt to contact them additional times, which will include reminders by email or a final reminder along with a paper questionnaire by mail.

If a household does not respond by a certain date, it will be included in the universe for the NRFU portion of the test. There are three major NRFU treatments being tested in the 2014 Census Site Test. First, the Tailored Contact Strategies portion will research and test ways of reducing the cost of in-person follow-up for cases sent to the field by finding ways to streamline operations to promote efficiencies (such as reducing the number of contact attempts), while striving to maintain quality. In addition, the project will use 2010 Census field procedures to use as a control group from which to compare results.

Second, the Adaptive Design Strategies portion will test a method of managing data collection by dynamically adapting contact attempt strategies on a per case basis using paradata and business rules to inform real-time management decisions. Principles associated with adaptive design such as using alternative modes of contact and using paradata to model the likelihood for a household to respond to repeated contact attempts will be applied to the NRFU workload in an attempt to lower field costs.

Third, the Administrative Records portion of the NRFU operations will reduce NRFU workloads at various stages of fieldwork. Some areas (in both the Tailored Contact and Adaptive Design portions described above) will have their NRFU workload reduced because administrative records information will be utilized to enumerate households that have been determined to be vacant or occupied and therefore do not require fieldwork. In other areas, administrative records information will be utilized to only enumerate unoccupied units that do not require field work. Administrative records will also be used to enumerate households for which a number of unsuccessful contact attempts have been made in the field in lieu of additional contact attempts. Overall, using administrative records information to remove non-responding cases from the field workload may reduce costs associated with NRFU operations.

The geographic area contains two strata, based on relative levels of response. The strata include distinct geographic areas that will correspond with different contact strategies. This mix of levels of response will allow the Census Bureau to gather cost data associated with mileage and hours spent traveling to housing units and interviewing respondents during NRFU operations. In addition, Time and Motion studies will be conducted.

For the 2014 Census Site Test, the Census Bureau will test the use of an automated enumeration device in field operations. The enumeration device is a new development effort with the goal of replacing paper based data collection methods historically used in decennial operations such as Nonresponse Follow-Up (NRFU). The test will help evaluate:

• The effectiveness of conducting a field operation with the use of consumer grade devices (e.g. iPhones and iPads).

In addition, for follow-on to the 2014 Census Site Test, the Census Bureau will experiment with using employee owned commercially owned smartphones to conduct the NRFU. The use of employee owned equipment/services is commonly referred to as Bring Your Own Device or BYOD. A sample of 250 households will be contacted at the end of the field operation using this methodology. The objectives of this component of the test are to:

• Design and develop software solutions, deployment, and support processes that run on commercially available employee owned mobile devices (i.e., iPhone).

• Deploy and support secure software solutions that can be installed on commercially available employee owned mobile devices.

Form Number: Paper questionnaires: DC-1A and DC-1B; electronic questionnaires with numbers as yet to be determined.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 192,500.

Estimated Time Per Response: 10 minutes per response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 32,083.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: Respondents who are contacted by cell phone and/or text message may incur charges depending on their plan with their service provider. The Census Bureau estimates that the total cost to respondents will be no more than $840,000. There are no other costs to respondents other than their time to participate in this data collection.

Respondents Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority:

Title 13 U.S.C. 141 and 193.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.

Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

Xylem Water Systems USA LLC (Xylem), operator of Subzone 37D, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities located in Auburn, New York. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on December 2, 2013.

Xylem already has authority to produce centrifugal pumps, submersible pumps, and related controllers. The current request would add a new finished product (control panels) and certain foreign components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Xylem from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Xylem would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to control panels (2.7%) and centrifugal and submersible pumps (free) for the foreign status inputs noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 3, 2014.

A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012. The review covers two producer/exporters of the subject merchandise, JBF RAK LLC (JBF) and FLEX Middle East FZE (FLEX). The Department preliminarily determines that sales of subject merchandise have been made below normal value by JBF and FLEX. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, whether extruded or co-extruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is roller transport cleaning film which has at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. Polyethylene terephthalate film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Methodology

The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.1 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit in room 7046 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012:

Manufacturer/ExporterWeighted-

average

margin

(percent)

JBF RAK LLC1.41FLEX Middle East FZE7.11Disclosure and Public Comment

The Department intends to disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may not be filed later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.2 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with each brief: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.3 Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.4

2See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).

3See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), (d)(2).

4See id.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. If a hearing is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via IA ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.

We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised by the parties in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register, unless otherwise extended.5

5See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

Upon issuing the final results of the review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review.

For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).6 We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of PET Film from the UAE entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies under review will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 4.05 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation.7 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

7See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, the People's Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value for the United Arab Emirates, 73 FR 66595, 66597 (November 10, 2008).

Notification to Importers

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty order on low enriched uranium (“LEU”) from France would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty order.

On December 3, 2012, the Department initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on LEU from France, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”).1 As a result of its review, the Department determined that revocation of the order on LEU from France would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail should the order be revoked.2 On December 12, 2013, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act that revocation of the antidumping duty order on LEU from France would lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

The product covered by the order is all low enriched uranium (“LEU”). LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) with a U235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO2, or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the downblending of highly enriched uranium).

Certain merchandise is outside the scope of the order. Specifically, the order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of the order. For purposes of the order, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO2), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates (U3O8) with a U235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of the order.

Also excluded from the order is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO2) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU (i) remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designed transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and (ii) are reexported within eighteen (18) months of entry of the LEU for consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the importer and end user.

The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.

Continuation of the Order

As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to Section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on LEU from France. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of the order not later than 30 days prior to the effective date of the continuation.

The five-year (“sunset”) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico.1 The review covers two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. (Golden Dragon) 2 and Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. (Nacobre). The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012. We have preliminarily found that sales of subject merchandise have been made at prices below normal value. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

1See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico and the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value From Mexico, 75 FR 71070 (Nov. 22, 2010) (Order).

The merchandise subject to the Order is seamless refined copper pipe and tube. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090, and also may enter under HTSUS subheadings 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive.3

3See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled “Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012,” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), dated concurrent with and adopted by this notice, for a complete description of the Scope of the Order.

Methodology

The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Preliminary Results of Review

The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

Producer or Exporter Weighted-

average

dumping

margin

(percent)

GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V 2.26Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V 0.59Disclosure and Public Comment

The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice.4 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.5 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.6 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using IA ACCESS.7

4See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

5See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

6See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

7See 19 CFR 351.303.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via IA ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by IA ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.8 Hearing requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.9

8See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

9See id.

The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h), unless this deadline is extended.

Assessment Rates

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.10 Golden Dragon and Nacobre reported the names of the importers of record and the entered value for all of their sales to the United States during the POR. If Golden Dragon's and Nacobre's weighted-average dumping margins are not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is not zero or de minimis. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

10See 19 CFR 351.212(b).

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Golden Dragon and Nacobre for which they did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

We intend to issue instructions to CBP 41 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Golden Dragon and Nacobre will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 26.03 percent, the all-others rate established in the Order. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

Tolling of Deadlines

As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.11 Therefore, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 16 days. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with the Department's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review is now December 18, 2013.

11See Memorandum for the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government” (Oct. 18, 2013).

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).

The Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting the 18th administrative review (AR) of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of review (POR) November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012.1 The mandatory respondents in this review are: Hebei Golden Bird Trading Co., Ltd. (Golden Bird) and Shenzhen Xinboda Industrial Co., Ltd. (Xinboda). The Department has preliminarily determined that, during the POR, the respondents in this proceeding have made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). The Department is also preliminarily determining that 13 companies made no shipments.

The merchandise covered by the order includes all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves. Fresh garlic that are subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description, available in Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 59209 (November 16, 1994), remains dispositive. For a full description of the scope of the order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.2

On December 31, 2012, the Department initiated this administrative review with respect to 139 companies.3 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The Department is rescinding this review for Jinxiang Jinma Fruits Vegetables Products Co., Ltd. and Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd., as: (1) Parties have timely withdrawn all review requests with respect to these companies; and (2) these companies have separate rates from a prior completed segment of this proceeding. For these companies, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the rates of the cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2).

3See Initiation Notice, 77 FR at 77020-77022.

The Department also received timely withdrawal requests for 94 other companies listed in the Initiation Notice. However, we are not rescinding the reviews for these companies at this time because they do not have a separate rate, and therefore, each currently remains part of the PRC-wide entity.4 The PRC-wide entity is currently subject to this administrative review.

4 These 94 companies are included in the PRC-wide entity list at Appendix II.

Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

Thirteen companies listed in Appendix I timely filed “no shipment” certifications stating that they had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Based on the certifications by these companies, and our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information, we preliminarily determine that the companies listed in Appendix I did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. In addition, the Department finds that, consistent with its refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, further discussed below, it is appropriate not to rescind the review, in part, in these circumstances, but to complete the review with respect to these 13 companies, and to issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.5

Of the remaining companies subject to these preliminary results, 20 are not eligible for separate rate status or rescission as they did not submit separate rate applications or certifications.6 As a result, these 20 companies are under review as part of the PRC-wide entity. For our determination with respect to the PRC-wide entity, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

6See Appendix II.

Methodology

The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is an NME within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, NV has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

The Preliminary Decision Memorandum provides a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and in the Department's Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Preliminary Results of Review

The Department has determined that the following preliminary dumping margins exist for the period November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2012:

The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to interested parties within ten days of the date of publication of this notice.7 We will notify interested parties of the schedule for submitting case briefs and rebuttal briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1), respectively. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and, (3) a table of authorities.

7See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or participate if one is requested, must electronically submit a request using IA ACCESS to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. The Department must receive the electronically-filed document, successfully in its entirety, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.8 Interested parties should include in the requests: the party's name, address, telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department will inform the parties of the scheduled date, time and location of the hearing.9 Parties should confirm by telephone or electronic mail, the date, time, and location.

8See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

9See 19 CFR 351.310.

Unless the deadline is extended pursuant section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.

Deadline for Submission of Publicly Available Surrogate Value Information

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3), the deadline for submission of publicly available information to value the factors of production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) is 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), if an interested party submits factual information less than ten days before, on, or after (if the Department has extended the deadline), the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information, an interested party may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct the factual information no later than ten days after such factual information is served on the interested party. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record.10 Furthermore, the Department generally will not accept business proprietary information in either the surrogate value submissions or the rebuttals thereto, as the regulation regarding the submission of surrogate values allows only for the submission of publicly available information.11

10See, e.g.,Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.

11See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3).

Assessment Rates

If these preliminary results of review are adopted in the final results, then the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per kilogram) amount on each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of the review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to the review.

Also, the Department recently announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for merchandise that was not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, but that entered under the case number of that exporter (i.e., at the individually-examined exporter's cash deposit rate), the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.12

12 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, will apply to all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in these final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, a zero cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates (i.e., those companies with no shipments listed in Appendix I), the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of $4.71 per kilogram; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is facilitating a meeting on January 9, 2014, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern time to discuss the method of sale (quantity statement) for products sold in pressurized containers using Bag on Valve (BOV) technology.

DATES:

The meeting will be held on Thursday, January 9, 2014, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern time.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Building 101, Lecture Room D, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for admittance instructions.

NIST is hosting and facilitating a meeting to support the efforts of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM), Laws and Regulations Committee on January 9, 2014, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern time. The meeting is intended to bring together federal and state government officials, industry, trade associations, and other interested parties to discuss the appropriate method of sale for packages labeled with a net quantity that utilizes BOV technology. NIST participates to promote uniformity among the states in laws, regulations, methods, and testing equipment that comprises the regulatory control of commercial weighing and measuring devices and systems and other trade and commerce issues.

The meeting will include a review of existing regulations within the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), current test procedures, safety concerns, and a discussion on how value and price comparison can be maintained related to the method of sale. Once registered, participants will receive logistical information and a tentative agenda.

Any changes and recommendations will be reported and presented through the NCWM for possible inclusion in NIST Handbook 130.

Packages in the marketplace using BOV technology, where the propellant is not dispensed along with the product, have been found with quantity statements in terms of net volume (i.e., milliliters and fluid ounces). Most states adopt the Uniform, Packaging and Labeling Regulation (UPLR) in NIST Handbook 130, “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology and Engine Fuel Quality” as their state regulation. There is a requirement in the UPLR that the net quantity on aerosol packages and similar pressurized containers be labeled in terms of net weight. Another provision in the UPLR states that “any net content statement that does not permit price and quantity comparison is forbidden.” Products using BOV technology versus traditional aerosol products cannot be easily distinguished when placed side by side, creating a challenge when consumers attempt to make value comparisons when two different methods of sale (i.e., weight and volume) are used. The outcome of the meeting is intended to produce a recommendation on the method of sale for labeling the net quantity of products sold using BOV technology and how products using BOV technology should be classified.

All participants must pre-register for this meeting in order to gain access to the NIST campus. Please submit your full name, email address, and phone number to Mr. David Sefcik no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, Friday, December 27, 2013. Non-U.S. citizens will be required to provide additional information after pre-registering with Mr. Sefcik. Mr. Sefcik's email address is david.sefcik@nist.gov and his phone number is (301) 975-4868.

Dated: December 17, 2013.Willie E. May,Associate Director for Laboratory Programs.[FR Doc. 2013-30672 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510-13-PDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationRIN 0648-XD023Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Amendment 40 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of MexicoAGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

NMFS, Southeast Region, in collaboration with the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) intends to prepare a DEIS to describe and analyze management alternatives to be included in Amendment 40 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (Amendment 40). Amendment 40 will consider alternatives to define private and for-hire components of the recreational red snapper fishery and allocate red snapper resources between these components. The purpose of Amendment 40 is to increase the stability for the for-hire component, provide a basis for increased flexibility in future management of the recreational sector, and reduce the chance for recreational quota overruns which could affect rebuilding of the red snapper stock. The purpose of this NOI is to solicit public comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the DEIS, as specified in this notice. The Council will continue to take comments on this action as it develops Amendment 40. The next Council meeting where public comment is scheduled will be February 3-7, 2014, at the Westin Galleria Houston, 5060 W. Alabama Street, Houston, TX 77056.

DATES:

Written comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the DEIS must be received by NMFS by January 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments on Amendment 40 identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0178” by any of the following methods:

Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

The red snapper stock is currently overfished and under a rebuilding plan. The commercial sector is managed under an individual fishing quota program that keeps the sector from exceeding its quota. The recreational sector is managed under a quota and NMFS projects the season length based on the quota and recent years' harvest trends. Due to the uncertainty in estimating recreational catches, the recreational sector has experienced quota overages in the last several years. The Council and NMFS have determined that separating the recreational sector into more than one component and establishing separate red snapper recreational sub-quotas for the different components may be one method to improve the management of recreational red snapper harvest.

The recreational sector for red snapper includes a private recreational component and a for-hire component. The for-hire component includes headboats and charter vessels. Current recreational management measures such as season length, daily bag limits, and size limits are applied to the recreational sector as a whole, without making a distinction between the private and for-hire components.

The for-hire component includes vessels that have a Federal reef fish permit and may fish for reef fish in Federal waters and state waters, as well as vessels that do not have a Federal reef fish permit and may only fish for reef fish in state waters. Federal reef fish for-hire permits were first issued in 1996. In 2004, a moratorium on the issuance of new permits was implemented (i.e., a cap was placed on the number of vessel permits issued) because of concern that this component of the fishery was expanding too fast. There is no limit to the number of state-permitted for-hire vessels.

There is also no limit to the number of private angler vessels that may target reef fish species including red snapper. Over time, there has been an increase in the number of private recreational vessels, while the number of Federal for-hire vessels has decreased. This change in vessel demographics has resulted in private vessels landing proportionally more of the red snapper recreational quota than Federal for-hire vessels in recent years. For example, in 2004 when the reef fish for-hire permit moratorium was implemented, approximately 55 percent of the recreational red snapper quota was landed by Federal for-hire vessels and 45 percent was landed by private vessels. In 2011, approximately 33 percent of the recreational red snapper quota was landed by Federal for-hire vessels and 67 percent was landed by private vessels.

The Council and NMFS are currently considering four actions in Amendment 40. These actions would define the different components of the recreational sector, determine how the quota would be split among the components, determine whether participation in the for-hire component would be mandatory or voluntary, and determine quota closure options for the different recreational components. The Council and NMFS may add actions in the future, such as landing reporting requirements, after the scoping process or from future discussions on this amendment.

NMFS, in collaboration with the Council, will develop a DEIS to describe and analyze alternatives to address the management needs described above including the “no action” alternative. In accordance with NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6, Section 5.02(c), Scoping Process, NMFS, in collaboration with the Council, has identified preliminary environmental issues as a means to initiate discussion for scoping purposes only. The public is invited to provide written comments on the preliminary issues, which are identified as actions in the Amendment 40 action guide. These preliminary issues may not represent the full range of issues that eventually will be evaluated in the DEIS. A copy of the Amendment 40 action guide is available at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/index.html.

After the DEIS associated with Amendment 40 is completed, it will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After filing, the EPA will publish a notice of availability (NOA) of the DEIS for public comment in the Federal Register. The DEIS will have a 45-day comment period. This procedure is pursuant to regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and to NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6 regarding NOAA's compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations.

The Council and NMFS will consider public comments received on the DEIS in developing the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), and before voting to submit the final amendment to NMFS for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. NMFS will announce in the Federal Register the availability of the final amendment and FEIS for public review during the Secretarial review period, and will consider all public comments prior to final agency action to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the final amendment. During Secretarial review, NMFS will also file the FEIS with the EPA and the EPA will publish an NOA for the FEIS in the Federal Register.

NMFS will announce, through a document published in the Federal Register, all public comment periods on the final amendment, its proposed implementing regulations, and the availability of its associated FEIS. NMFS will consider all public comments received during the Secretarial review period, whether they are on the final amendment, the proposed regulations, or the FEIS, prior to final agency action.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice; public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) will hold a meeting, which is open to the public.

DATES:

The HMSMT will meet Wednesday, January 22, 2014, to Friday, January 24, 2014. The meeting will begin each day at 8:30 a.m. and continue until close of business on each day. The meeting is expected to adjourn by midday on January 24.

3. Updates on recent developments at the international level affecting HMS stocks of interest.

4. Potential changes to HMS management that may be implemented for the April 1, 2015—March 31, 2017 biennial period, which the Council will begin considering in June 2014.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice; public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a joint public meeting of its Monkfish Committee and Monkfish Advisory Panel on January 10, 2014 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

The New England Fishery Management Council's Monkfish Oversight Committee and Advisory Panel will review the analyses provided by the Monkfish Plan Development Team for trips limits, including incidental catch limits, and DAS allocations for fishing years 2014-16 as part of Framework Adjustment 8 (FW 8) to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan. The Committee may also review any alternatives included in FW 8 in developing recommendations for consideration by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

At the November Pacific Council meeting in Costa Mesa, CA, the Pacific Council adopted for further analysis a range of alternatives for electronic monitoring (EM) of the West Coast groundfish trawl catch share program and announced that, at its April 2014 meeting, it will consider draft Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) applications submitted for the purpose of allowing the use of EM in place of observers for vessels participating in the trawl rationalization program. In a letter to the industry, the Pacific Council encouraged applicants to provide draft EFP applications to the Pacific Council's GEMTAC before submission of a complete EFP application to the Pacific Council for its April meeting. The GEMTAC will hold a work session January 22 and 23 in Portland to discuss development of an impact analysis for the Council's adopted alternatives (January 22) and to review draft EFP applications (January 23). The GEMTAC may comment on completeness of the study design, feasibility of implementation, or other elements of the draft EFP applications that might be considered for adjustment. No management actions will be decided at this meeting.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the GEMTAC for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. The meeting will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the GEMTAC's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) Would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) Are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations (50 CFR parts 222-226) governing listed fish and wildlife permits.

A notice of the receipt of an application for a scientific research permit (16344) was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2011 (76 FR 20956). Permit 16344 was issued to Dr. Jerri Bartholomew on December 10, 2013.

Permit 16344 authorizes Dr. Jerri Bartholomew to obtain juvenile Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon of hatchery origin for field and laboratory studies of effects of disease upon exposure to the myxozoan parasite.

Permit 16344 is for research to be conducted in the Klamath River, California, and at the John L. Fryer Salmon Disease Laboratory at Oregon State University in Corvalis, Oregon. The purpose of the research is to provide information to NMFS for evaluation of water management decisions to minimize disease risks to juvenile Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon in the Klamath River; and to evaluate habitat restoration and management actions. Permit 16344 expires on December 31, 2018.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed request for extension of approval of a collection of information for the safety standards for full-size baby cribs and non-full-size baby cribs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved the collection of information under control number 3041-0147. OMB's approval will expire on February 28, 2014. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of approval of this collection of information from OMB.

DATES:

The Office of the Secretary must receive comments not later than February 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2010-0075, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number, CPSC-2010-0075, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

Section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), Public Law 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008), requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These standards are to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The Commission issued safety standards for full-size and non-full-size baby cribs in response to the direction contained in section 104(b) of the CPSIA.

1. Full-Size Cribs

On December 28, 2010, the Commission published a final rule for full-size cribs that incorporated by reference ASTM F1169-10, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Full-Size Baby Cribs, with modifications. 75 FR 81766. On December 9, 2013, the Commission adopted the revised ASTM standard for full-size cribs, ASTM F1169-13, which was codified at 16 CFR part 1219. 78 FR 73692.

Sections 8 and 9 of the ASTM F1169-13 contain requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature that fall within the definition of “collections of information” at 5 C.F.R. § 1320.3(c). Section 9 of ASTM F1169-13 also requires full-size cribs to be provided with instructions regarding assembly, maintenance, cleaning, storage, and use, an assembly drawing, a list and description of all parts and tools required for assembly, and a full-size diagram of the required bolts and other fasteners, as well as a variety of warnings.

2. Non-Full-Size Cribs

On December 28, 2010, in the final rule on full-size cribs, the Commission also addressed non-full-size cribs. The Commission incorporated by reference ASTM F 406-10a, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Non-Full-Size Baby Cribs, with modifications, which was codified at 16 CFR part 1220. 75 FR 81766.

Sections 9 and 10 of ASTM F406-10a, contain requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature that fall within the definition of “collections of information” at 5 C.F.R. § 1320.3(c). Section 10 of ASTM F406-10a also requires non-full-size cribs to be provided with instructions regarding assembly, maintenance, cleaning, storage, and use, as well as a variety of warnings.

B. Total Burden Hours1. Crib Suppliers

There are 78 known firms supplying full-size cribs to the U.S. market and 24 supplying non-full-size cribs. All firms are assumed to use compliant labels already on both their products and their packaging. If firms needed to make some modifications to their existing labels the estimated time required to make these modifications is about one hour per model. Each firm supplies approximately 11 different models of full-size cribs and four different models of non-full-size cribs; therefore, the estimated burden hours associated with the labels is ((1 hour × 78 firms × 11 models per firm) + (1 hour × 24 firms × 4 models per firm) = 954 annual hours.

Section 9 of ASTM F1169-11 and section 10 of ASTM F406-10a require instructions to be supplied with the product. This is a practice that is usual and customary with both full-size and non-full-size cribs. Cribs are products that generally require some installation and maintenance instructions, and any products sold without such information would not be able to compete successfully with products that provide this information. Any burden associated with supplying instructions with full-size cribs and non-full-size cribs would be “usual and customary” and not within the definition of “burden” under OMB's regulations. 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).

We estimate that hourly compensation for the time required to create and update labels is $27.66 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” June 2013, Table 9, total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual cost associated with the proposed requirements is $26,388 ($27.66 per hour × 954 hours).

2. Federal Government

The estimated annual cost of the information collection requirements to the federal government is approximately $3,527, which includes 60 staff hours to examine and evaluate the information as needed for Compliance activities. This is based on a GS-12 level salaried employee. The average hourly wage rate for a mid-level salaried GS-12 employee in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area (effective as of January 2011) is $40.80 (GS-12, step 5). This represents 69.4 percent of total compensation (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” June 2013, Table 1, percentage of wages and salaries for all civilian management, professional, and related employees, http://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Adding an additional 30.6 percent for benefits brings average hourly compensation for a mid-range salaried GS-12 employee to $58.78. Assuming that approximately 60 hours will be required annually, this results in an annual cost of $3,527.

C. Request for Comments

The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

—Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility;—Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate;—Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and—Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology.Dated: December 19, 2013.Todd A. Stevenson,Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.[FR Doc. 2013-30644 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6355-01-PDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEDepartment of the Army[Docket ID USA-2013-0046]Proposed Collection; Comment RequestAGENCY:

Department of Defense/Department of the Army/U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Department of the Army announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

DATES:

Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to U.S. Army PEO Aviation, Product Director Aviation Networks and Mission Planning (SFAE-AV-AS-ANMP) ATTN: George C. Goodman Jr. Sparkman Center, Building 5309, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama 35898, Phone (256) 842-4995.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain and retain flying experience, qualifications and training data of each aviator, crew member, Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operator, flight surgeon and aeromedical physician assistants in aviation service; and to monitor and manage individual contractor flight and ground personnel records. Leadership uses CAFRS to determine proficiency of Air Traffic Controllers and Air Traffic Control Maintenance Technicians and the reliability of the Air Traffic Control system operations within the Department of the Army. CAFRS provides Commanders with access to essential aviation information in order to accomplish effective Risk Assessment/Risk Management throughout the Aviation Mission Planning process.

On October 31, 2013, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) published a NOA in the Federal Register (78 FR 65300) announcing the publication of the General Purpose Warehouse and Information Technology Center Construction (GPW/IT)—Tracy Site—EA. The EA was available for a 30-day public comment period which ended November 29, 2013. The EA was prepared as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (1969). In addition, the EA complied with DLA Regulation (DLAR) 1000.22. No comments were received during the comment period. This FONSI documents the decision of DLA to construct the GPW/IT at Tracy, California. DLA has determined that the proposed action was not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the context of NEPA and that no significant impacts on the human environment are associated with this decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ann Engelberger at (703) 767-0705 during normal business hours Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EST) or by email: Ann.Engelberger@dla.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) completed an EA to address the potential environmental consequences associated with the construction of a General Purpose Warehouse and Technology Information Center at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, California, Tracy Site. The FONSI incorporates the EA by reference and summarizes the results of the analysis in the EA.

Purpose and Need for Action: The Proposed Action is needed to meet the overall strategy for installation development and sustainment over the short and long term, and to meet current and future mission requirements and national security objectives associated with the DLA Distribution Depot San Joaquin.

Proposed Action and Alternatives: Under the Proposed Action, DLA would construct a GPW in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and an IT Center in FY 2015 at the Tracy Site. The GPW would be approximately 365,500 square feet and would include a 360,000 square feet active bulk warehouse and a 5,500 square feet annex. The active bulk warehouse would be composed of four bays. The annex would include administrative offices; restrooms; locker rooms; mechanical, electrical and communications rooms; a multi-purpose room; and eight sprinkler riser annexes. The proposed GPW would be constructed in an area that is bordered by Ennis Drive to the north, 7th Street to the east, B Street to the south and an existing parking lot to the northwest. The project area is currently paved and serves as a trailer parking lot and laydown area (i.e., outside storage). As part of the Proposed Action, DLA would construct a new trailer parking lot (approximately 295,000 square feet) and new laydown area (approximately 240,000 square feet) at the Tracy Site. The trailer parking lot would be constructed in an unimproved, open lot that is bordered by C Street to the north, 5th Street to the east, D Street to the south and 4th Street to the west. The laydown area would be constructed in an unimproved, irregularly shaped open lot that is intersected by 5th Street starting approximately 200 feet south of D Street and continuing approximately 800 feet to the south. The project area also includes approximately 100 feet to the west of 5th Street and approximately 150 to 400 feet east of 5th Street, bound by Ennis Drive to the southeast.

The proposed IT Center would be approximately 44,900 square feet (31,400 square feet Information Systems facility and 13,400 square feet electronic equipment storage area). The project would include a 48,200 square feet parking lot; computer/server rooms with raised flooring; administrative offices; conference rooms; storage areas; break rooms; restrooms and public access areas. The IT Center would be constructed in the northwestern-most corner of the Tracy Site, north of Building 201 and A Street, and immediately west of West Street. The majority of the project area for the proposed IT Center is currently paved and serves as a personally owned vehicle (POV) parking lot.

The IT Center would house the Defense Automatic Addressing Center (DAASC) and Joint Staff, Command and Control (J6) organizations and all their computer/server equipment. The IT Center would also include computer/server rooms with raised flooring; administrative offices; conference rooms; storage areas; break rooms; restrooms and public access areas. Supporting facilities for the GPW and IT Center would include all utilities (i.e., potable water, sanitary server and wastewater distribution, electricity and natural gas). Upon completion of the Proposed Action, the total impervious surface area of the GPW, trailer parking lot, laydown area, IT Center and POV parking lot would be approximately 512,100 square feet. Because the entire project area for the proposed GPW and the majority of the project area for the proposed IT Center is currently paved and improved, the overall increase in impervious surface area upon completion of the Proposed Action would be minor.

Under the No Action Alternative, DLA would not construct the GPW or IT Center. Modern facilities would not be provided and operational conditions would not be improved. In general, implementation of the No Action Alternative would require that DLA continue to operate under substandard, inefficient, and in some cases, unsafe conditions. These deficiencies would impair DLA's future ability to sustain current and future national security objectives and other mission requirements successfully. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose of and need for the action.

Potential Environmental Impacts: Potential impacts from the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative were analyzed for the following environmental resources: Land use, noise, air quality, geological resources, water resources, biological resources, health and safety, utilities and infrastructure (including transportation), hazardous materials and wastes, socioeconomic resources and environmental justice, and cultural resources. Long-term, adverse impacts on geology, soils and water resources would be expected from a long-term increase in storm water runoff volume and velocity due to an increase in impervious surface area. However, impacts would be minor because the majority of the project areas are either currently paved or previously disturbed. Once construction of the GPW and IT Center is completed, there would be a long-term increase in demand for water, wastewater treatment, electricity and natural gas. No significant impacts on any of the aforementioned environmental resources would be expected from the implementation of the Proposed Action.

Determination: DLA has determined that implementation of the Proposed Action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Human environment was interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. Specifically, no highly uncertain or controversial impacts, unique or unknown risk or cumulatively significant effects were identified. Implementation of the Proposed Action will not violate any federal, state or local laws. Based on the results of the analyses performed during the preparation of the environmental assessment, David Rodriguez, Director, DLA Installation Support, concludes that construction of the GPW/IT project does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the context of NEPA. Therefore, an environmental impact statement for the proposed action is not required.

Purpose of Meeting: This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended),the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Committee will obtain, review and evaluate classified information related to the Committee's mission to advise on technology security, Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (C-WMD), counter terrorism and counter proliferation.

Agenda: Beginning at 1:00 p.m., January 28, and through the end of the meeting on January 29, the committee will receive a classified brief from the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), as the Commander of USSTRATCOM, Admiral Haney will review his CWMD priorities and discuss what issues the TRAC may be able to review and provide advice or recommendations. A classified C-WMD focused intelligence update will follow, where representatives from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)/CWMD Division will provide the latest intelligence assessments for the Levant region and other regions of concern. The Committee will deliberate on the Cooperative Threat Reduction, in a classified setting, on initial recommendations to commission a study on metrics through a Systems Analysis FFRDC, ensure the development of vignettes to tell the story of the accomplishments of the CTR program, and that DoD must find a more productive method of engaging the COCOMs. Next, a classified deliberation on WMD-Elimination, where the Committee will review their progress in reviewing DoD's enduring counter-proliferation and weapons of mass destruction elimination missions. Potential recommendations for deliberation will include a discussion regarding the organization of the Standing Joint Force Headquarters for Elimination. Following that, a classified deliberation will focus on Strategic CWMD Indications & Warnings. The Committee will discuss their review of the Global Combatting WMD Awareness System (GCAS) and discuss if GCAS can be developed into a relevant near term capability to support operational needs of the Combatant Commands. Additional discussion will include the need for further work to define what a strategic I&W capability should consist of and what role or gap the GCAS should fill. The following discussion will focus on Securing Special Nuclear Materials, at the classified level. This topic is a new area of review, therefore, the Committee will discuss the draft Terms of Reference that has been developed in an effort to achieve consensus on the direction of this focus area. The session will conclude with a classified discussion on the way ahead.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that the meeting shall be closed to the public. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in consultation with the DoD FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that the public interest requires all sessions of this meeting be closed to the public because the discussions will be concerned with classified information and matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). Such classified matters are inextricably intertwined with the unclassified material and cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without disclosing secret material.

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of FACA, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the Committee at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the Committee's Designated Federal Officer. The Designated Federal Officer's contact information is listed in this notice or it can be obtained from the General Services Administration's FACA Database—http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/committee.aspx?cid=1663&aid=41.

Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the Committee may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all committee members.

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and the Federal Advisory Committee Management Act; Final Rule 41 CFR parts 101-6 and 102-3.

Purpose of Meeting: To obtain, review and evaluate classified information related to the DPB's mission to advise on: (a) Issues central to strategic DoD planning; (b) policy implications of U.S. force structure and force modernization and on DoD's ability to execute U.S. defense strategy; (c) U.S. regional defense policies; and (d) other research and analysis of topics raised by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary or the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

Meeting Agenda: Beginning at 8:00 a.m. on January 14 through the end of the meeting on January 15, the DPB will have secret through top secret (SCI) level discussions on national security issues regarding Pakistan.

Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Department of Defense has determined that this meeting shall be closed to the public. The Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), in consultation with the Department of Defense FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that this meeting be closed to the public because the discussions fall under the purview of Title 5, United States Code, Section 552b(c)(1) and are so inextricably intertwined with unclassified material that they cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without disclosing secret or classified material.

Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the DPB at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the DPB's Designated Federal Officer; the Designated Federal Officer's contact information is listed in this notice or it can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—http://facasms.fido.gov/default.aspx.

Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the DPB may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all committee members.

U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Department of the Air Force.

ACTION:

ACTION:Meeting notice.

SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR § 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the United States Air Force (USAF) Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) meeting will take place on 7 January 2014 at the Secretary of the Air Force Technical and Analytical Support Conference Center, 1550 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The meeting will be from 7:30 a.m.-4:45 p.m. on Tuesday, 7 January 2014. The sessions from 7:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m., Tuesday, 7 January 2014, will be open to the public.

The purpose of this Air Force Scientific Advisory Board quarterly meeting is to formally kick off the FY14 SAB studies: Defense of USAF Forward Bases; Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications; Technology Readiness for Hypersonic Vehicles; and Combating Sexual Assault. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR § 102-3.155, some sessions of the USAF Scientific Advisory Board meeting will be closed to the public because they will discuss information and matters covered by section 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and (2).

Any member of the public wishing to attend this meeting or provide input to the USAF Scientific Advisory Board must contact the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed below at least five days prior to the meeting date. Submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR § 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at the address listed below at least five calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the USAF Scientific Advisory Board until its next meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the USAF Scientific Advisory Board Chairperson and ensure they are provided to members of the USAF Scientific Advisory Board before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

DATES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2013-ICCD-0158 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E103, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For questions related to collection activities or burden, please call Kate Mullan, 202-401-0563 or electronically mail ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Please do not send comments here. We will ONLY accept comments in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Program Application Documents.

Abstract: This collection of information includes the following documents: (1) Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Application and Promissory Note (Application and Promissory Note); (2) Instructions for Completing the Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Application and Promissory Note (Instructions); (3) Additional Loan Listing Sheet; (4) Request to Add Loans; and (5) Loan Verification Certificate (LVC). The Application and Promissory Note serves as the means by which a borrower applies for a Federal Direct Consolidation Loan and promises to repay the loan. The Instructions explain to the borrower how to complete the Application and Promissory Note. The Additional Loan Listing Sheet provides additional space for a borrower to list loans that he or she wishes to consolidate, if there is insufficient space on the Application and Promissory Note. The Request to Add Loans serves as the means by which a borrower may add other loans to an existing Federal Direct Consolidation Loan within a specified time period. The LVC serves as the means by which the U.S. Department of Education obtains the information needed to pay off the holders of the loans that the borrower wants to consolidate.

This revision updates the forms to reflect certain statutory and regulatory changes revises language for greater clarity and for greater consistency with other Direct Loan Program promissory notes.

The United States Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) seeks public comment on whether to amend the State-specific instructions applicable to Arizona, Kansas, and Georgia on the National Mail Voter Registration Form (“Federal Form”). Those States have requested that the EAC modify their State-specific instructions on the Federal Form to include State law requirements that, as a precondition to registering to vote in Federal elections, voter registration applicants provide additional proof of their United States citizenship beyond that already required by the Federal Form. EAC is voluntarily soliciting public comment on these requests from Arizona, Kansas, and Georgia.

DATES:

Comments must be in writing and must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on January 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by docket number EAC-2013-0004 and title, by any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any personally identifiable information (such as full Social Security numbers, full dates of birth, and full driver's license numbers) if its disclosure is restricted by statute. Such information should be redacted to include only the last four digits of an individual's Social Security number or other taxpayer identification number, driver's license number, or account number, and only the year of an individual's birth.

Background: The EAC is the Federal agency charged with developing, maintaining, and, where necessary, modifying the National Mail Voter Registration Form mandated by Section 9(a) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-7(a). Pursuant to Sections 4(a)(2) and 6(a) of the NVRA, id. §§ 1973gg-2(a)(2) and 1973gg-4(a), States covered by the NVRA must accept and use the Federal Form for registration of voters in elections for Federal office.

As originally enacted, the NVRA assigned authority to the Federal Election Commission “in consultation with the chief election officers of the States” to “develop a mail voter registration application form” and to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out” this responsibility. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-7(a). The FEC undertook this responsibility, in consultation with the States, and issued the original regulations on the Federal Form in 1994. NVRA Final Rule Notice, 59 FR 32,311 (June 23, 1994). In the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”), the FEC's responsibilities regarding the Federal Form were transferred to the EAC. 42 U.S.C. 15532.

The EAC's discretion in developing the content of the Federal Form is constrained by several statutory requirements, including those found in Section 9(b) of the NVRA, 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-7(b), and Section 303(b)(4) of HAVA, id. § 15483(b)(4). The EAC has promulgated regulations that further delineate the contents and format of the Federal Form. See 11 CFR Part 9428, Subpart B. The EAC commissioners have delegated to the Executive Director of the EAC the day-to-day responsibilities of implementing and interpreting EAC regulations and policy, answering questions from stakeholders regarding the application of NVRA or HAVA, and maintaining the Federal Form consistent with the NVRA and EAC Regulations and policies.

State Requests to Modify State-Specific Instructions: The chief election official of each State is responsible for notifying the EAC within 30 days of any change in the State's voter eligibility requirements or any other information reported under 11 CFR 9428.6. Pursuant to those requirements, the FEC and later the EAC received numerous requests over the years from States to modify the Federal Form's State-specific instructions in various respects.

In recent years, the EAC has received requests from three States to include State-specific instructions on the Federal Form requiring voter registration applicants from their states to supply additional proof of their United States citizenship as a precondition to registration. These changes were requested as a result of the passage of State laws requiring such additional proof of citizenship. Arizona first submitted its request to the EAC to include such an instruction in 2005, as a result of the State's passage in 2004 of a voter initiative known as Proposition 200, later codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat § 16-166(F). Kansas first submitted its request to the EAC to include such instructions in 2012, as a result of the State's passage in 2011 of amendments to its voter registration laws, codified at Kan. Stat. Ann. § 25-2309(l). Georgia first submitted its request to the EAC to include such instructions in 2013, as a result of the State's passage in 2009 of amendments to its voter registration laws, codified at Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-216(g).

On March 6, 2006, the EAC denied Arizona's original 2005 request to include additional proof of citizenship instructions on the Federal Form, finding that the form already required applicants to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury and to complete a mandatory checkbox indicating that they are citizens of the United States. The EAC also found that Congress had specifically considered but ultimately rejected a provision in the NVRA that would have allowed states to require documentary proof of citizenship, because such a provision was, in Congress's words, “not necessary or consistent with the purposes of” the NVRA. On the basis of these findings, the EAC concluded that Arizona's proof of citizenship law was preempted by Federal law, and that Arizona must accept the Federal Form for voter registration in Federal elections, without requiring additional proof of citizenship.

In July 2006, after receiving a request from Arizona's Secretary of State, the EAC's then-chairman requested that the EAC commissioners grant an accommodation to Arizona by reconsidering the Executive Director's March 6, 2006, final decision on behalf of the agency and granting Arizona's request to include its requested proof-of-citizenship instructions in the State-specific instructions on the Federal Form. On July 11, 2006, the EAC commissioners denied the chairman's motion for an accommodation by a tie vote of 2-2.

Private parties filed litigation against Arizona, challenging, among other issues, Arizona's compliance with the NVRA, and this litigation reached the Supreme Court during the 2012 Term. In June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the NVRA preempts inconsistent State law and States must accept and use the Federal Form for voter registration purposes in elections for Federal office. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2247, 2253-60 (2013) (hereinafter “Inter Tribal Council”).

The EAC deferred consideration of the requests by Kansas and Georgia pursuant to internal operating procedures put in place in 2011 by the former EAC Executive Director. These procedures provided that requests that “raise issues of broad policy concerns to more than one state” would be deferred until the EAC regained a quorum of its commissioners, so that they would have the opportunity, if they desired, to provide additional policy guidance to the Executive Director and staff. Currently all four seats on the EAC are vacant.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Inter Tribal Council in June 2013, Arizona and Kansas renewed their requests to the EAC to change the State-specific instructions on the Federal Form to include additional proof-of-citizenship requirements, and the EAC likewise deferred those renewed requests, in accordance with the 2011 EAC internal procedures. Kansas and Arizona officials then initiated litigation against the EAC in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, challenging the EAC's deferral of these requests. See Kobach v. EAC, No. 5:13-cv-4095 (D. Kan. filed Aug. 21, 2013). On December 13, 2013, as part of this litigation, the district court remanded the Kansas and Arizona matters to the EAC with instructions that the EAC render a final agency action on the Kansas and Arizona requests to change the Federal Form by no later than January 17, 2014. The Court's order provided that if the EAC has not acted by January 17, 2014, the States' requests will be deemed by the Court to have been denied. The Georgia request is not part of this pending federal court litigation.

Request for Public Comments: The EAC invites public comments on the requests from Arizona, Kansas and Georgia to modify the State-specific instructions for those States on the Federal Form to require additional proof of citizenship under their respective state laws beyond the existing requirements on the Federal Form. The EAC invites public comments on any issues that commenters believe are relevant to the EAC's consideration of these State requests. Comments must be in writing and must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on January 3, 2014.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Notice and Request for OMB Review and Comment.

SUMMARY:

EIA has submitted an information collection request to the OMB for extension with changes, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for the Electricity and Renewable Power Surveys (OMB Control Number 1905-0129) information collection. EIA requests a three-year clearance with changes for the following existing forms:

Form EIA-411, “Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program Report”

Form EIA-826, “Monthly Electric Utility Sales and Revenue Report with State Distributions”

Form EIA-860, “Annual Electric Generator Report”

Form EIA-860M, “Monthly Update to the Annual Electric Generator Report”

Form EIA-861, “Annual Electric Power Industry Report”

Form EIA-861S, “Annual Electric Power Industry Report (Short Form)”

Form EIA-923, “Power Plant Operations Report” and

the addition of a new survey, Form EIA-930, “Balancing Authority Operations Report” under OMB Control Number 1905-0129.

EIA also proposes to discontinue OMB Control Number 1905-0196 for the Solar Information Collection. This collection includes the Form EIA-63A (Annual Solar Thermal Collector/Reflector Shipments Report), Form EIA-63B (Annual Photovoltaic Module/Cell Shipments Report), and Form EIA-902 (Annual Geothermal Heat Pump Shipments Report). The current approval will expire on December 31, 2013. EIA does not plan to collect data on the Forms EIA-63A and EIA-902 and proposes to transfer the Form EIA-63B to the Electric Power Information Collection (OMB Control Number 1905-0129).

DATES:

Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before January 23, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718 or contacted by email at Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov.

Direct any requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions to Rebecca Peterson at erus2014@eia.gov, or at 202-586-4509. The collection instrument and instructions are also available on the Internet at: http://www.eia.gov/survey/changes/electricity/.

(3) Type of Request: Extension, with changes of a currently approved collection;

(4) Purpose: The electricity and renewables surveys collect data from entities involved in the production, transmission, delivery, and sale of electricity, and in maintaining the reliable operation of the power system. The data collected are the primary source of information on the nation's electric power industry. EIA uses the data collected on the electric power surveys to answer queries from the U.S. Congress, other federal and state agencies, the electric power industry, and the public; and as input to the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) and to EIA's other forecasting and analytical activities. Other users of the data include policy makers, regulators, energy market analysts, and the energy industries.

EIA proposes that the existing Form EIA-63B, “Annual Photovoltaic Cell/Module Shipments Report,” move into this clearance package to permit EIA to better align its surveys and programs. In addition, EIA's proposed new Form EIA-930, “Balancing Authority Operations Report,”' will collect hourly information on the operation of the power system, a topic of growing interest due to the impact of renewable power plants and demand response programs on power system performance.

Changes to the currently approved forms in this package include collecting enhanced data on power system reliability, operations, environmental performance, and energy efficiency and demand response programs, and eliminating questions where the data either are no longer needed or cannot be accurately or cost-effectively collected. In addition, EIA proposes changes to the data protection terms for the electric power survey forms to uniformly apply the same policy regarding electric power data. There are two changes in the provisions for protecting the survey data. The first change is that EIA will protect and not publicly disclose the information on the individuals who complete the survey forms. The second change is that, with the exceptions of blackstart data and power plant construction costs reported on Form EIA-860, and all data reported on Form EIA-63B, EIA will no longer apply disclosure limitation procedures to the published aggregate electric power statistical data.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Proposed information collection; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on a proposed collection of information that DOE is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

(4) Purpose: DOE is seeking approval to collect information from manufacturers and to require that manufacturers retain records of covered consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment pursuant to Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA”), 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq. The EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) of the EPCA provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.

The Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles consists of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use (1) as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under the EPCA, and (2) for making representations about the efficiency of those products. DOE must use these test requirements to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under the EPCA.

DOE is renewing its information collection on the energy and water efficiency of consumer products and commercial equipment manufactured for distribution in commerce in the United States. Under the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles DOE requires that manufacturers: (1) Submit certification and compliance reports for each basic model distributed in commerce in the U.S.; (2) maintain records underlying the certified ratings for each basic model including test data and the associated calculations; and (3) submit an application for a test procedure waiver for which manufacturers may elect to submit if they manufacturer a basic model that cannot be tested pursuant to the DOE test procedure.

DOE currently requires manufacturers or their party representatives to prepare and submit certification reports and compliance statements using DOE's electronic Web-based tool, the Compliance and Certification Management System (CCMS), which is the only mechanism for submitting certification reports to DOE. CCMS currently has product specific templates which manufacturers are required to use when submitting certification data to DOE. See http://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms. DOE believes the availability of electronic filing through the CCMS system reduces reporting burdens, streamlines the process, and provides the Department with needed information in a standardized, more accessible form. This electronic filing system also ensures that records are recorded in a permanent, systematic way.

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of AlphaGen Power LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is January 13, 2014.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

On December 11, 2013, a Commission staff-led workshop explored the mechanics of filing reactive power rate schedules for which there is no compensation.1 Interested persons are invited to file written comments focused on the mechanics of filing reactive power rate schedules for which there is no compensation.

1 The workshop was held in response to the Commission's directive in Chehalis Power Generating, L.P., Docket No. ER05-1056-007. Chehalis Power Generating, L.P., 145 FERC ¶ 61,052 (2013).

Comments should be filed with the Commission in this docket, Docket No. AD14-1-000, on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 24, 2014.

A link to the workshop webcast can be found here: http://stream.capitolconnection.org/capcon/ferc/ferc.htm.

The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Beryllium (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart C) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 0193.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0092), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2014. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR 33409) on June 4, 2013, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Abstract: The sources subject to this rule (i.e., extraction plants, ceramic plants, foundries, incinerators, propellant plants, and machine shops which process beryllium and its derivatives), complying with the onetime only stack test, would be required to submit initial notification reports and a one-time-only report with the emission limit determination. The sources complying with the alternative ambient air quality limit by operating a continuous monitor in the vicinity of the affected facility are required to submit a monthly report of all measured concentrations. Records shall be retained for two years.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an apparent increase of two hours in the total estimated respondent burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. This increase is due to rounding, and is not due to any program changes. The most-recently approved ICR rounded the burden hours associated with recordkeeping for operating parameters and emissions to the nearest whole number. In contrast, burden hours are rounded to two decimal places in this ICR, resulting in an apparent increase of two hours.

There is an increase in the respondent cost from the most recently-approved ICR due to the use of updated labor rates. This ICR references labor rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate the respondent burden cost.

The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2227.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0610), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2014. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR 35023) on June 11, 2013, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes, or additions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-time-only report of any physical or operational changes, initial performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are required semiannually at a minimum.

Changes in the Estimates: The increase in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to adjustments in the number of new or modified sources and updated labor rates. This ICR accounts for the industry growth since the last ICR renewal period and uses updated labor rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate burden costs.

Additionally, the capital/startup and O&M costs as calculated in section 6(b)(iii) have been corrected to reflect initial performance tests as a one-time capital/startup costs, rather than ongoing O&M costs. This results in an increase in capital costs, and a corresponding decrease in O&M costs.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On September 6, 2013 (75 FR 59708), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2013-0565, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744 and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is 202-566-0219.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket and to access documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search”, then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

Title: Confidentiality Rules (Renewal).

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1665.12; OMB Control No. 2020-0003.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2014. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

Abstract: In the course of administering environmental protection statutes, EPA collects data from “businesses” in many sectors of the U.S. economy. In many cases, “businesses” mark the data it submits to EPA as confidential business information (CBI). In addition, businesses submit information to EPA without the Agency requesting the information. EPA established the procedures described in 40 CFR part 2, subparts A and B, to protect the confidentiality of information as well as the rights of the public to obtain access to information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In accordance with these regulations, when EPA finds it necessary to make a final confidentiality determination (e.g., in response to a FOIA request or in the course of rulemaking or litigation, a resubstantiation of a prior claim, or an advance confidentiality determination), it shall notify the affected business and provide an opportunity to submit a substantiation of confidentiality claims. This ICR relates to information EPA needs to collect to assist in determining whether previously submitted information is entitled to confidential treatment.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are businesses and other for-profit companies.

Changes in Estimates: EPA as part of the ICR renewal process obtained usage of each of the letters for the past 12 months that comprise this ICR to obtain up-to-date estimates. EPA found that both usage and response rates decreased.

In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the Cadie Auto Salvage Site in Belvidere, Boone County, Illinois with the following settling party: Helen E. Cadie. The settlement requires the owner Settling Party to pay a set percentage of the net proceeds from the sale of the Site. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the Settling Party pursuant to CERCLA, contribution protection for the Settling Party pursuant to CERCLA, and a release of a CERCLA lien on the Site. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the EPA, Region 5, Records Center, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 7th Fl., and Chicago, Illinois 60604.

The Cadie Auto Salvage Superfund Site is located in Belvidere, Boone County, Illinois. After EPA received a request from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. EPA conducted an assessment of the Site and conducted a removal action. A total of 248 compressed gas cylinders on the Site were shipped off site for disposal as well as approximately 733 gallons of flammable liquids, two oz. of metallic mercury, ten tons of empty drums, eight tons of non-hazardous soil, 18 tons of hazardous soil, and fifty cans of waste aerosols. The work was completed on December 1, 2010. U.S. EPA issued a General Notice Letter to the Settling Party in September 2010. Between June 2010 and August 2013, EPA and the Settling Party negotiated the present proposed Administrative Settlement.

The Environmental Justice Technical Guidance (EJTG) Review Panel public meeting will be held on Thursday January 30, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) and on Friday January 31, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

ADDRESSES:

The public meeting will be held at The Renaissance Arlington Capitol View Hotel, 2800 South Potomac Avenue, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Any member of the public who wants further information concerning the public meeting may contact Dr. Sue Shallal, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via telephone at (202) 564-2057 or email at shallal.suhair@epa.gov. General information concerning the SAB can be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB Environmental Justice Technical Guidance Review Panel will hold a public meeting to discuss the agency's draft technical document that provides information on how to consider environmental justice in regulatory analysis. This SAB panel will provide advice to the Administrator through the chartered SAB.

Background: The EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics along with the Office of Environmental Justice has requested that the SAB peer review their Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (May 1, 2013). The EPA released the draft technical guidance for public comment on May 9, 2013 (see https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/05/09/2013-11165/technical-guidance-for-assessing-environmental-justice-in-regulatory-analysis). The deadline for submitting public comments to the agency was September 6, 2013. Background on this SAB review, including the process for forming this review panel was provided in a Federal Register Notice published on June 4, 2013 (Volume 78 FR 107; 33416-33417). The SAB Panel met on June 19-20, 2013 to learn about the development of the technical guidance, how the EPA currently assesses environmental justice (EJ) concerns and to provide their initial impressions. The purpose of this upcoming meeting is for the SAB Panel to learn about the comments submitted by the public to the agency and to develop draft responses to the charge questions. Additional information about this advisory activity can be found at the following URL: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/EJ%20Technical%20Guidance?OpenDocument. A meeting agenda and other meeting materials will be posted at the above noted URL prior to the meeting.

Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning EPA's draft technical document should be directed to Dr. Kelly Maguire at (202) 566-2273 or by email at maguire.kelly@epa.gov.

Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible through the calendar link on the blue navigation bar at http://www.epa.gov/sab/.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information on the topic of this advisory activity, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the SAB to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB committees to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes. Interested parties should contact Dr. Sue Shallal, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by January 23, 2014, to be placed on the list of public speakers for the meeting. Written Statements: Written statements should be supplied to the DFO via email at the contact information noted above by January 23, 2014 for the meeting so that the information may be made available to the Committee members for their consideration. Written statements should be supplied in one of the following electronic formats: Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Sue Shallal at (202) 564-2057 or shallal.suhair@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Dr. Shallal preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

The public teleconference will be held on Friday, January 21, 2014 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

Location: The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Any member of the public wishing to obtain information concerning the public meeting may contact Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-2218 or at nugent.angela@epa.gov. General information about the SAB as well as any updates concerning the meeting announced in this notice may be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB will hold a public meeting to discuss and deliberate on the topics below.

As noted in the Federal Register Notice announcing a meeting of the chartered SAB on December 4-5, 2013 (78 FR 68057-68058), the EPA has recently underscored the need to routinely inform the SAB about proposed and planned agency actions that have a scientific or technical basis. Accordingly, the agency provided notice to the SAB that the Office of Management and Budget published the “Unified (Regulatory) Agenda” on the Web on July 3, 2013 (http://www.reginfo.gov/public). On December 4-5, 2013, the Chartered SAB discussed whether it should provide advice and comment on the adequacy of the scientific and technical basis for EPA actions included in the Unified (Regulatory) Agenda. The chartered SAB discussed information relating to these planned actions at the December 4-5, 2013 meeting. On January 21, 2014, the chartered SAB will conclude its discussion of one action, the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation Units (2060-AQ91).

The chartered SAB will also discuss draft advisory letters to the EPA Administrator on the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) fellowship program and possible future SAB advice related to the EPA's strategic priorities.

Availability of Meeting Materials: Agendas and materials in support of this meeting will be placed on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab in advance of the meeting.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office.

Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the Designated Federal Officer directly. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a teleconference will be limited to three minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should contact Dr. Angela Nugent, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by January 14, 2014 for the teleconference, to be placed on the list of public speakers. Written Statements: Written statements should be supplied to the DFO via email at the contact information noted above by January 14, 2014 for the teleconference so that the information may be made available to the Panel members for their consideration. Written statements should be supplied in one of the following electronic formats: Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Angela Nugent at (202) 564-2218 or nugent.angela@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Dr. Nugent preferably at least ten days prior to the teleconference to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

DATES:

Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before February 24, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 4(i) and 624(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 76.601(b) requires the operator of each cable television system shall conduct complete performance tests of that system at least twice each calendar year (at intervals not to exceed seven months), unless otherwise noted below. The performance tests shall be directed at determining the extent to which the system complies with all the technical standards set forth in § 76.605(a) and shall be as follows:

(1) For cable television systems with 1000 or more subscribers but with 12,500 or fewer subscribers, proof-of-performance tests conducted pursuant to this section shall include measurements taken at six (6) widely separated points. However, within each cable system, one additional test point shall be added for every additional 12,500 subscribers or fraction thereof (e.g., 7 test points if 12,501 to 25,000 subscribers; 8 test points if 25,001 to 37,500 subscribers, etc.). In addition, for technically integrated portions of cable systems that are not mechanically continuous (i.e., employing microwave connections), at least one test point will be required for each portion of the cable system served by a technically integrated microwave hub. The proof-of-performance test points chosen shall be balanced to represent all geographic areas served by the cable system. At least one-third of the test points shall be representative of subscriber terminals most distant from the system input and from each microwave receiver (if microwave transmissions are employed), in terms of cable length. The measurements may be taken at convenient monitoring points in the cable network: Provided, that data shall be included to relate the measured performance of the system as would be viewed from a nearby subscriber terminal. An identification of the instruments, including the makes, model numbers, and the most recent date of calibration, a description of the procedures utilized, and a statement of the qualifications of the person performing the tests shall also be included.

(2) Proof-of-performance tests to determine the extent to which a cable television system complies with the standards set forth in § 76.605(a)(3), (4), and (5) shall be made on each of the NTSC or similar video channels of that system. Unless otherwise as noted, proof-of-performance tests for all other standards in § 76.605(a) shall be made on a minimum of four (4) channels plus one additional channel for every 100 MHz, or fraction thereof, of cable distribution system upper frequency limit (e.g., 5 channels for cable television systems with a cable distribution system upper frequency limit of 101 to 216 MHz; 6 channels for cable television systems with a cable distribution system upper frequency limit of 217-300 MHz; 7 channels for cable television systems with a cable distribution upper frequency limit to 300 to 400 MHz, etc.). The channels selected for testing must be representative of all the channels within the cable television system.

(3) The operator of each cable television system shall conduct semi-annual proof-of-performance tests of that system, to determine the extent to which the system complies with the technical standards set forth in § 76.605(a)(4) as follows. The visual signal level on each channel shall be measured and recorded, along with the date and time of the measurement, once every six hours (at intervals of not less than five hours or no more than seven hours after the previous measurement), to include the warmest and the coldest times, during a 24-hour period in January or February and in July or August.

(4) The operator of each cable television system shall conduct triennial proof-of-performance tests of its system to determine the extent to which the system complies with the technical standards set forth in § 76.605(a)(11).

Note 1 to 47 CFR 76.601 states prior to additional testing pursuant to Section 76.601(c), the local franchising authority shall notify the cable operator, who will then be allowed thirty days to come into compliance with any perceived signal quality problems which need to be corrected.

47 CFR 76.1704 requires that proof of performance test required by 47 CFR 76.601 shall be maintained on file at the operator's local business office for at least five years. The test data shall be made available for inspection by the Commission or the local franchiser, upon request. If a signal leakage log is being used to meet proof of performance test recordkeeping requirement in accordance with Section 76.601, such a log must be retained for the period specified in 47 CFR 76.601(d).

47 CFR 76.1705 requires that the operator of each cable television system shall maintain at its local office a current listing of the cable television channels which that system delivers to its subscribers.

47 CFR 76.1717 states that an operator shall be prepared to show, on request by an authorized representative of the Commission or the local franchising authority, that the system does, in fact, comply with the technical standards rules in part 76, subpart K.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0433.

Title: Basic Signal Leakage Performance Report.

Form Number: FCC Form 320.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,920 respondents and 5,920 responses.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Sections 4(i), 302 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: Cable television system operators and Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MPVDs) who use frequencies in the bands 108-137 and 225-400 MHz (aeronautical frequencies) are required to file a Cumulative Signal Leakage Index (CLI) derived under 47 CFR 76.611(a)(1) or the results of airspace measurements derived under 47 CFR 76.611(a)(2). This filing must include a description of the method by which compliance with basic signal leakage criteria is achieved and the method of calibrating the measurement equipment. This yearly filing of FCC Form 320 is done in accordance with 47 CFR 76.1803. The records must be retained by cable operators.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communication Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

DATES:

Written comments should be submitted on or before January 23, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES:

Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email PRA@fcc.gov mailto:PRA@fcc.gov and to Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 4(i), 154(i), 303(r) and 309(j).

Total Annual Burden: 2,754 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $366,975.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general there is no need for confidentiality. On a case by case basis, the Commission may be required to withhold from disclosure certain information about the location, character, or ownership of a historic property, including traditional religious sites.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 603 is a multi-purpose form used to apply for approval of assignment or transfer of control of licenses in the wireless services. The data collected on this form is used by the FCC to determine whether the public interest would be served by approval of the requested assignment or transfer. This form is also used to notify the Commission of consummated assignments and transfers of wireless and/or public safety licenses that have previously been consented to by the Commission or for which notification but not prior consent is required. This form is used by applicants/licensees in the Public Mobile Services, Personal Communications Services, General Wireless Communications Services, Private Land Mobile Radio Services, Broadcast Auxiliary Services, Broadband Radio Services, Educational Radio Services, Fixed Microwave Services, Maritime Services (excluding ships), and Aviation Services (excluding aircraft).

The purpose of this form is to obtain information sufficient to identify the parties to the proposed assignment or transfer, establish the parties basic eligibility and qualifications, classify the filing, and determine the nature of the proposed service. Various technical schedules are required along with the main form applicable to Auctioned Services, Partitioning and Disaggregation, Undefined Geographical Area Partitioning, Notification of Consummation or Request for Extension of Time for Consummation.

The form 603 is being revised to add a National Security Certification that is applicable to applicants for licenses issued as a result of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (2012 Spectrum Act). Section 6004 of the 2012 Spectrum Act, 47 U.S.C. 1404, prohibits a person who has been, for reasons of national security, barred by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding on a contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a grant from participating in any auction that is required or authorized to be conducted pursuant to the 2012 Spectrum Act.

On June 27, 2013, the Commission released a Report and Order (R&O), FCC 13-88, WT Docket No. 12-357, in which it established service rules and competitive bidding procedures for the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands. See Service Rules for the Advanced Wireless Services H Block-Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Bands, Report and Order, FCC 13-88, 28 FCC Rcd 9483 (2013). The R&O also implemented Section 6004 by requiring that a party seeking to participate in any auction conducted pursuant to the 2012 Spectrum Act certify in its application, under penalty of perjury, the applicant and all of the related individuals and entities required to be disclosed on its application are not person(s) who have been, for reasons of national security, barred by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding on a contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a grant and thus statutorily prohibited from participating in such a Commission auction or being issued a license. In addition, the R&O determined that the National Security Certification required by Section 6004 extends to transfers, assignments, and other secondary market mechanisms involving licenses granted pursuant to the 2012 Spectrum Act. See H Block R&O, 28 FCC Rcd at 9555 ¶ 187. The Commission therefore seeks approval for a revision to its currently approved information collection on FCC Form 603 to include this additional certification. The revised collection will enable the Commission to determine whether an applicant's request for a license pursuant to the 2012 Spectrum Act is consistent with Section 6004.

Additionally, the form 603 is being revised to update the Alien Ownership certifications pursuant to the Second Report and Order, FCC 13-50, IB Docket 11-133, Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended.

The addition of the National Security Certification and the revision to the Alien Ownership certification result in no change in burden for the revised collection. The Commission estimates that the additional certification will not measurably increase the estimated average amount of time for respondents to complete FCC Form 603 across the range of applicants or for Commiss